Re: split-subbeam direction

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> We recently talked with Paul Roberts,  a notation guru that explained
> to us that it should really be
> 
>      |  |  |  |
>  |----------------|--|--|
>  |---|--|--|  |---|--|--|  
>  |                |  |  |  
> 
> 
> (the 1st stem determines the "direction" of the beam)

Yesterday I stumbled accros Read, who says that adding the second beam
below the primary one is *in this case* is the more usual thing to do,
but that there is no definate rule.

> I'm planning on extending the beam code to allow both versions, but
> as you might imagine, it's not very high on the priority list.

Yes, we might want to search/gather more insight into this.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org