Hello,
-Original Message-
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 04:03:24 +
To: bug-lilypond bug-lilypond@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a
new system
Neil Puttock n.puttock at gmail.com writes:
On 6 March 2011
% 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 }
I disagree. The second accidental there serves a clarification purpose.
Otherwise, it would remain unclear if the carried-over accidental is effective
there or not. You most likely can suppress it, or parenthesize it, if that's
what you wish, but generally speaking, it helps in interpreting
On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem s...@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.
%
% So I think measure 5, 9, and 13 are wrong in the
Neil Puttock n.puttock at gmail.com writes:
On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem sese at 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
