"David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes:
"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.
I am sure that there are sensible configurations available also for
Windows mailreasers.
Hey - you're talking about M$ software here! (FWIW I use the same software
for mail and news, - partly since the lilypond newsgroups are also mailing
lists. I don't want to change).
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.
You should at the very least delete the signature marker ("-- " on a
line of its own).
Good tip.
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."
Which is likely the intent. It is still not proper in my opinion. I
would suppose that a conservative approach would be to mark all
non-signature accidentals in force at the time of the clef change in a
manner that will cause a (sometimes cautionary) accidental to be printed
regardless of whether the next note on the previously
accidental-equipped is in-signature or not.
That's sort of a half-reset of accidentals: it sets all non-signature
accidentals basically to "unknown".
It seems to me that, unless there is a cast iron rule in the literature (and
it would appear not to be the case) then the best option might be to treat
the clef change as a bar-line and use cautionaries as appropriate.
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
