Re: Proposal: Changing tremolo beam gap implementation

[Noeck]

Hi Torsten,

> *What do you think?*
> Wouldn't it be better to have "gap" actually mean "free space"?

I would also expect the "gap" to be the free space between stem and beam.

In your attached image, I wonder if you have drawn the upper beam from
the inner edge of the stem only for demonstration reasons, what a gap=0
would be. The stems and beams have slightly rounded corners, haven't
they? So if the beam touches the stem, it should overlap to avoid little
notches where they touch.
In other words, while currently gap=0 is a valid choice, with your
proposed gap definition, gap should either be >0 or -stem-thickness but
not 0, right?

{
  \override Beam.gap = 0.13  # roughly equivalent to free space = 0
  \repeat tremolo 4 { a32 e' }
}

Cheers,
Joram