[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Autobeaming
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: Autobeaming |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:27:05 -0700 |
On 12/29/09 8:41 AM, "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 12/29/09 4:48 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Hi Carl
>>
>> This looks like a much better approach. It means the
>> special \overrideTimeSignatureSettings will be required
>> only rarely, and setting autoBeamRules for just the
>> current time signature should have a much simpler
>> format as the time signature is known - is that right?
>
> Sort of.
>
> I wouldn't recommend setting autoBeamRules for the current time signature,
> because that setting will disappear if the time signature changes.
>
> I think that proper way to get new autoBeamRules is to override the
> timeSignatureSettings.
>
> But if one wants to avoid that complication, one can just set autoBeamRules
> for the current time signature.
>
I think I've got a consistent idea now. I think I can add a property
(probably 'details to avoid namespace pollution, but maybe
timeSignatureDefaults) to the TimeSignature grob.
Then I can use standard /override and /revert to set the autobeaming rules.
What do you think of that idea?
Carl
- Autobeaming, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/28
- Re: Autobeaming, John Mandereau, 2009/12/28
- Re: Autobeaming, David Kastrup, 2009/12/29
- Re: Autobeaming, Trevor Daniels, 2009/12/29
- Re: Autobeaming, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/29
- Re: Autobeaming,
Carl Sorensen <=
- Re: Autobeaming, Joe Neeman, 2009/12/29
- Re: Autobeaming, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/29
- Re: Autobeaming, Joe Neeman, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, David Kastrup, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/31
- Re: Autobeaming, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/12/31