Re: PATCH: Issue 638 Autobeaming

[Carl Sorensen]

On 12/18/09 9:52 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> 
> Carl, you wrote Friday, December 18, 2009 4:21 PM
> 
>> On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> A question.  Does your code require autobeaming
>>> rules to be defined for beams of every possible
>>> duration?  I ask because the following example beams
>>> inconsistently, and I'm not sure if this is due to your
>>> code or differences in the autobeaming rules for 4/4 and
>>> 2/2 time signatures.  With a32 instead of a64 a64 the
>>> beaming is fine.
>> 
>> The current design is that unless a beaming rule is specified for
>> a given
>> duration, the default beaming rule is used.
> 
> I mentioned this example because the beaming with
> your patch is inconsistent when the 64th notes are
> present because they cause the rule for 32nd notes
> to be ignored.  This is a change from the previous
> behaviour.

Actually, the code now correctly breaks the beam in response to the rule for
the shortest note in the beam, rather than for the *last* note in the beam.

There was a bug in the existing code (I haven't traced the history, and it
came from before my time) that caused the end point to be considered on the
current duration, not the shortest duration in the beam.  So the previous
behavior was wrong and the current behavior is correct.

Thanks,

Carl