David, And it would have been "visible" if the file I attached had been viewed rather than dismissed as not being "minimal." Reminds me Aesop fable of the Fox and the Grapes.
Mark -----Original Message----- From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:50 AM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> Cc: 'Thomas Morley' <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>; 'lilypond-user' <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> writes: > The two lines have been used toe "rebuild" the template. Yet the > acciaccatura problem still exists! My solution: eliminate the > acciaccatura and get on with the rest of the score. In this case, the acciacatura has not even been a part of the problem, so I am surprised that eliminating it would have helped. The problem would, at least if I understand correctly, have been visible with << \key bes\major { b1 } { g1 } >> just the same. The first replies did focus on the acciaccatura since grace timing is one of the topics where this kind of problem appears most often, and the example did contain acciaccature so that was an easy mistake to make. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
