"David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes:
\relative c' {
\clef bass cis2 c
\clef tenor cis2 \clef bass c % natural is not printed!!
\clef bass cis2 \clef tenor c
}
Could you _please_ _never_ write an answer or comment in the _signature_
of the original posting? Sensible mailreaders don't quote the signature
when replying, cutting away all of your content.
Apologies. As you're probably aware, I'm a Windows man, and some postings
don't quote properly using my mailreader. As a result, If I want all the >
signs there, I have to put them in by hand. In this case, I didn't bother.
Now to your comment:
It's doing what I would expect from reading the regtest - i.e. - when
there is a clef change, the accidentals are reset to that which you'd
expect from the key. Therefore, in your example we return to C major,
and so there's no need to print the accidental. I'd welcome other
thoughts as to whether this is correct, though.
I don't think it is correct. If you set the above with \key g\major,
you will notice that the key signature is _not_ repeated with a clef
change. So there is no visual or logical reason to assume "accidentals
are reset". If that was the underlying assumption for a clef change,
the key signature would be repeated.
So I'm confused as to what the regtest text cited means. It
(accidental-clef-change.ly) says "Accidentals are reset for clef changes."
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
