Phil Holmes-2 wrote > It's taken me a while to work out what's going on here, but it looks like > it's caused by an incorrect assumption in the snippet, and a change in > behaviour from \stemDown. > > The incorrect assumption in that \stemDown isn't needed - it is. The red > notes are placed in an automatic 3rd voice, which has stems up by default. > Therefore, by default the tuplet numbers are above the notes. In 2.14, > stemDown also moved the tuplet numbers, and so the \stemDown command put > the > red tuplet numbers below the notes. > > This behaviour has changed (I've not tracked why) and stemDown now only > alters the stems. So the red notes are forced to be stem down, but the > tuplet numbers remain above the notes - hence double numbers above the > notes. It can be corrected by using \voiceFour instead of \stemDown. > > FWIW I think \stemDown should not move the tuplet numbers.
thanks for the quick resolution, Phil! (and I also think \voiceTwo/Four would be better) and thanks for adding a tracker to remember, Colin! Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/LSR-199-has-2-tuplet-numbers-since-2-15-7-tp139306p139335.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
