Peter Bjuhr wrote > Based on these two examples, it would indeed seem that LilyPond is > intelligent enough to adjust for this potential problem; in the first > example where there were no risk of mistakenly take the accidental for a > part of the key signature the distance were 1.3 and here when the risk > is apparent it is 1.5. If this is the case and not just random > coincidence I would completely drop this from the list of potential > problems. What do you think Gilberto?
It seems to be random to me. Have a look at these: \version "2.17.95" { \override Score.TimeSignature.stencil = ##f \key f \major aes'4 } { \override Score.TimeSignature.stencil = ##f \key bes \major aes'4 } In the first case, there is no risk of mistaken the flat accidental on the aes for a key signature, but on the bottom case it has the risk. And both have pretty much the same spacing (around 1.4 units). So I don't think LilyPond is adjusting for potential misunderstandings. Best, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Beam-positions-and-time-signature-spacing-tp153538p153764.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user