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 difficult
pieces, particularly atonal ones.
Peter
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:34:43 +0100
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a new system
% 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 }
\relative a' {
\key f \major
as2 as~ | as as~ | \break
as~ as~ | as as~ | \break
as as | b b~ | \break
b~ b~ | b b~ | \break
b b | cis cis~ | \break
cis~ cis~ | cis cis~ | \break
cis cis
}
%
%
% Zoltan
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
