Re: complex time signatures: scheme help

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/14/09 4:46 PM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" <address@hidden> wrote:

 
> Attached is my current code for general complex time signatures (arbitrary #
> of fractions, arbitrary # of numerators). I have not yet tried to get it into
> master, because the auto-beaming does not yet follow the signature.

How should auto-beaming respond to a compound time signature?

In particular, how should ((2 3 8) (4 8)) be different from (2 3 4 8)?

I think with the new autobeaming code it would not be hard to get the
top-level beaming right.

BeatLength, on the other hand, probably doesn't have sufficient structure
built into it to handle ((1 2 3 4 8) (2 4) (2 3 8)), because for that time
signature, beatLength should vary with measure position.

I'm willing to take a shot at fixing the auto-beaming, if you'd like.

Carl