Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi, 1. Without a "tied-to" accidental, "starting at the beginning of the system" (e.g.) will almost certainly lead to confusion or errors; What makes you think so? Actually I instinctively thought the opposite. If I were to see such a note while sightreading I'm almost certain I'd misinterprete the tie for a slur. What note is this: This screenshot only shows the second system. Here's the actual Lilypond code: \version "2.17" \language "english" \score {   \relative c'' {     \override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t     \key a \major     c1 ~ \break c   } } It's a C-natural!!!  =) By hiding the accidental after the break, I introduce [unnecessary] ambiguity at the beginning of the system, which can only be resolved by looking backwards to the end of the last system — it is precisely for this reason that Gould (and many others) suggest repeating the accidental after a line break. Best, Kieren.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user