Re: Line-breaking with non-aligned barlines

[David Sumbler]

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Morley <address@hidden>
To: David Sumbler <address@hidden>
CC: lilypond-user <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Line-breaking with non-aligned barlines
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:25:42 +0100

Am Mo., 29. Okt. 2018 um 12:10 Uhr schrieb David Sumbler <
address@hidden>:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Morley <address@hidden>
> To: David Sumbler <address@hidden>
> CC: lilypond-user <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Line-breaking with non-aligned barlines
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 02:01:04 +0200
> 
> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 23:52 Uhr schrieb David Sumbler <
> address@hidden>:
> 
> 
> > But as things are the break here is still unsatisfactory
> > because the semiquaver just after the break has 2 long beams
> > stretching
> > back to the start of the line, whereas one would ideally want 1
> > long
> > beam and a short one.  I haven't managed to figure out how this can
> > be
> > changed: any ideas would be welcome.
> 
> A minimal would be:
> 
> \paper { indent = 0 ragged-right = ##t }
> 
> {
>     \override Beam.breakable = ##t
>     s2. s8
>     c'8[
>     \break
>     c'16]
> }
> 
> I do not quite understand what to do with this.

Well, a minimal example demonstrates a certain behaviour. In this case
the too long "second beam" which should be a beamlet.
It does it in a shorter way compared to your code below. Nothing else.

In the same mail I provided some code as a workaround to shorten the
second beam to a beamlet.
In a followup I provided a more general coding:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-10/msg00406.html

So I don't understand what you're asking.

<snip>

My apologies.  I misunderstood the relevance of the minimal example. 
In the light of your latest email, I now see that it was a minimal
demonstration of the problem; I thought it was intended to be a minimal
solution to the problem.

Thanks for all your attention to this, and indeed for the actual
workaround.

David