On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Jan Warchoł <
lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/12 Trevor Daniels <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>:
> >
> > Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:25 AM
> >
> >> I agree too, but in my opinion it's a less important problem than the
> >> one marked in red in the attachment. (However, it was present in
> >> 2.12.3 too).
> >> The natural on c is perhaps moved because of the dot on f, but i don't
> >> think it should be moved this way.
> >
> > Agreed. Although two almost identical situations are typeset correctly
> > in the same example, with the accidental sliding neatly over the dot.
> >
> > This must be a bug, so copying to Bug list for bug squad to process.
>
> I think i have an idea how to explain this bug.
> I suppose it happens because LilyPond is not aware that the dot is in
> voiceTwo context (and therefore lower than usual).
> compile this:
>
> { g'4.*1/32 d''!32 g'4.*1/32 e''!32 }
> { \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne d''!32 \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne e''!32
> }
>
> In the upper line, the first accidental (on d'') is too low to move
> left (it would collide with the dot). The second accidental (on e'')
> is high enough to be moved over dot. Everything fine here.
> Now in the second line the music is the same except that dotted notes
> are in lower voice. This makes the dots move down, they are a whole
> staffspace lower. However, Lily fails to notice that, and engraves the
> naturals exactly like in the upper line.
>
> cheers,
> Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> bug-lilyp...@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>
What's the status of this? I cannot find an issue on the tracker. Did I miss
something?
Ralph
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
