> Comment #2 on issue 726 by joeneeman: Wrong accidentals alignment when a > second occurs simultaneously > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=726 > > The behaviour for the first example is explained by the fact that we align > accidentals belonging to the same octave.
But that's wrong! Aligning octave-accidentals may be a
general preference, but Ted Ross (pp.130-135) clearly
demonstrates that the preference is overridden in the
presence of a second (labeled A in the scan). The
preference to have the lower natural close to its note-
head overrides the preference to align the octave. Even
in the absence of a second, Ross gives cases where it
makes more sense *not* to align the octaves. I've
marked these with a red "x" in the picture.
So I propose we remove the auto-octave-accidental-
alignment rule and follow Ted Ross as closely as
possible.
I don't consider this issue "fixed".
- Mark
<<attachment: Ross_accidentals.png>>
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
