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
