Hello, -----Original Message----- From: Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 04:03:24 +0000 To: bug-lilypond <bug-lilypond@gnu.org> Subject: Re: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a new system
>Neil Puttock <n.puttock <at> gmail.com> writes: >>On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem <sese <at> elte.hu> wrote: >>> >>> % Hello, >>> % >>> % Accidentals on tied notes are printed at the beginning of a new >>> % system. But I think that in these cases there should be no second >>> % accidental in that measure. >>I agree.[...] >>http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=649 >>Cheers, >>Neil > >Stone, p55, agrees with Neil and Zoltan, >in that Kurt Stone says the accidental "need not be repeated" if it >follows the >same repeated accidental due to a tie being broken across lines. It seems that people can bring out counter-examples from both camps. My own feeling is that in the end it is always going to be easier to write '?' on a note than an (\once) \override on a score where it IS printed and someone doesn't want it. James _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
