You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have proposed #399 which would do away with the absurd duplication of beam levels, but unless (and until) that proposal is accepted I am trying to implement the spec as written. It is not clear to me which level the beam hooks should be on. My best guess is that they should be on the lowest level that does not have a beam hook. So, e.g., 32nd beam hooks would be attached to the 16th beam unless the 16th beam is broken (or it's a double dot or something). It would be nice to have this spelled out.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I have proposed #399 which would do away with the absurd duplication of beam levels, but unless (and until) that proposal is accepted I am trying to implement the spec as written. It is not clear to me which level the beam hooks should be on. My best guess is that they should be on the lowest level that does not have a beam hook. So, e.g., 32nd beam hooks would be attached to the 16th beam unless the 16th beam is broken (or it's a double dot or something). It would be nice to have this spelled out.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions