Hello,
-Original Message-
From: Keith OHara
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 04:03:24 +
To: bug-lilypond
Subject: Re: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a
new system
>Neil Puttock gmail.com> writes:
>>On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem el
Neil Puttock gmail.com> writes:
>
> On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > % Hello,
> > %
> > % Accidentals on tied notes are printed at the beginning of a new
> > % system. But I think that in these cases there should be no second
> > % accidental in that measure.
>
> I a
On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem wrote:
>
> % Hello,
> %
> % Accidentals on tied notes are printed at the beginning of a new
> % system. But I think that in these cases there should be no second
> % accidental in that measure.
> %
> % So I think measure 5, 9, and 13 are wrong in the following
in interpreting difficult
pieces, particularly atonal ones.
Peter
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:34:43 +0100
From: s...@elte.hu
To: bug-lilypond@gnu.org
Subject: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a new system
% Hello,
%
% Accidentals on tied notes are printed at the beg
% Hello,
%
% Accidentals on tied notes are printed at the beginning of a new
% system. But I think that in these cases there should be no second
% accidental in that measure.
%
% So I think measure 5, 9, and 13 are wrong in the following example:
\version "2.13.53"
\paper{ ragged-right = ##t }
\r
