I'm looking at Dover's PIANO MUSIC OF ROBERT SCHUMANN: SERIES I which is a reprint of Breitkopf & Härtel, originally printed between 1879 & 1887.
On page 179, 5th system, 2nd bar, there is an extra natural before the d#. No other d's in sight, but the key signature is f minor. That would seem to be an example using the feature. On page 164, 2nd system, 5th bar, there is an extra natural before the d#, but this time the key signature is f# major. It's probably there because there is a d## in another octave, previously, in the same bar (theoretically, accidentals only apply to the same octave, we are told). On page 186, 1st bar, there is an extra natural before the e-flat, where the key signature is b-flat minor. This is presumably because there is an e-double-flat in the previous bar (so in this case, it is a cautionary accidental, but not explictly so - the symbols are not enclosed in parentheses). If you want to include extra naturals, then an algorithm is probably not going to cover all cases, anyway. Having the algorithm is useful - if the rules it follows are clear, it'll work for most cases, but not all. You'll probably be wanting to reproduce what is found in an old score, whether it follows the rules, or not. Therefore, I'd prefer to see an easy way of explicitly specifying that an extra natural is wanted (e.g. two exclamation marks after the note, fis!!). You could then even use double natural signs, if you wanted to. Regards, Bruys On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:40:08PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > >> [email protected] writes: > >> > >> > In light of the discussion about this patch, how hard would it be to > >> > make it controllable? I don't have a good idea of the name, since > >> > IIRC we already have an extraNatural property. > >> > >> As long as not a single user _wants_ the old behavior, why bother? > > > > I thought that some people _did_ want that behavior. There is some > > discussion about whether or not they _should_ want that behavior, but > > if it's easy to accommodate them, I'd rather that lilypond allow > > people to shoot themselves in the foot if they specifically request > > it. > > If there is no example of a composition using the feature except old > Lilypond printouts, supporting this is a distraction in code and > documentation. > > -- > David Kastrup > > _______________________________________________ > bug-lilypond mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond > _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
