On 05/07/14 18:13, Urs Liska wrote: > Am 05.07.2014 16:49, schrieb Urs Liska: >> Am 05.07.2014 15:50, schrieb Jean-Charles Malahieude: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On my way in updating translations, I notice that this style seems >>> to not do what it claims. >>> >>> Look at the two successive examples in NR-1.1.3 Automatic >>> accidentals, both styles dodecaphonic and dodecaphonic-no-repeat: >>> there is no difference at all. >> >> That's right, this is a bug, and I will look into it. I'm not on the >> right PC to check right now, but I strongly assume it's an issue with >> the doc example and not with the accidental style. >> >> Urs > > It seems this accidental-style is actually broken. > The doc example is coded correctly, and testing the accidentalstyle in > a document turns out the same result. > > I know that it worked correctly when we added it, so it must have been > broken later. > So it should be added as a bug. > > To avoid misunderstandings: > > cis d cis cis d > > should print as > > cis! d! cis! \once \omit Accidental cis d! > > > Urs > > _______________________________________________ > bug-lilypond mailing list > bug-lilypond@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Thanks http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3992 James _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
