Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de> writes:
> Hi David,
>
> yes, I think there is no such command as short as ?.
>
>> Using '\once \override Accidental.stencil = ##f' isn't too onerous -
>> but I just wondered if there was an even easier way.
>
> \once \omit Accidental
> is the same and it is a bit shorter but no way near ! or ?.
"@"=\single \omit Accidental \etc
{ @cis1 }
> Of course, you can always define a command like
> no = \once \omit Accidental
yes
> I don't know of an accidental style which treats line breaks
> differently. But in general, this might be possible to define.
No. Line breaks interfere with the accidentals on tied notes, and the
treatment of those is hard-coded into the accidental glyph rather than
the accidental style. One consequence is that
<https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/649/>
is a long-standing issue since it concerns accidentals that are _not_
right after a line break but still related to it.
The accidental styles have no notion of line breaks and they are
interpreted at a time where they could not take them into account.
Basically a line break should usually invalidate all accidentals like a
clef change does (any position that has a pending accidental differing
from the key signature will unconditionally get an accidental whether or
not it agrees with the key signature or the last accidental on the
previous line). And when this forces an accidental not otherwise
printed, it might also affect _subsequent_ accidentals.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
