Re: Beams in Lilypond

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

+list

Figuring out how the number -0.63 was calculated is basically asking to
read the code. Can you take a step back and explain what you need this
information for?

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 6:01 AM Chad Linsley <clinsl@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm afraid my understanding of code is very limited. My hunch is that
> there is an array of possible beam slopes generated which Lilypond then
> calculates the least squares regression line. Is there any way to get
> Lilypond to spit out this number? I can't figure out how the number -0.63
> was arrived at.
>
> C
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 1:57 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Have a look at
>> https://github.com/lilypond/lilypond/blob/9af92c35746c5d6de70ae5b3af5c696741f603cd/lily/beam-quanting.cc#L539
>>
>> Op za 27 mei 2023 03:22 schreef Chad Linsley <clinsl@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear Han-Wen,
>>>
>>> Greetings from Montreal! I've been trying to learn about how Lilypond
>>> calculates beam angles etc. and came across a great comment you made in the
>>> Dorico Development diary about the subject of beams:
>>>
>>> "Regarding the stubby note group in your example: the scoring deems that
>>> the disparity between ideal slope (-0.63 staffspace) and steinberg’s
>>> example is a worse tradeoff than the shortened stems for LilyPond’s choice.
>>> To be exact: the scoring for the steinberg choice is 2.57 (ideal slope) +
>>> 1.57 (stem) and the LilyPond choice gets 0.17 (slope) + 2.96 (stem length)."
>>>
>>> https://blog.dorico.com/2015/03/development-diary-part-10/
>>>
>>> With Beam.inspect-quants I was able to generate the same results of the
>>> demerit points for the Steinberg and Lilypond examples as indicated.
>>> However, I couldn't understand where the "ideal slope (-0.63 staffspace)
>>> number comes from at the beginning of your comment.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thank-you for your time!
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Chad Linsley
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwenn@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen