On 13.09.2016 17:35, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:
As the example above shows, when a second note or chord is not identical to a first chord but contains one or more identical pitches, these do not get accidentals.
Which I think is perfectly in line with the intended behaviour of the accidental rule.
I don't think this behaviour is correct, as it leads to a very confusing output.
That’s quite flawed logics – whether or not you find it confusing doesn’t have anything to do with it being correct or not.
IMO, the best approach is the following: if a note is identical to a previous note or if a chord is identical to a previous chord, then their accidentals are omitted, else print all accidentals.
Then maybe we should provide different options, or you just have to create your own accidental style (which I already made a bit easier; ask back on the user list if you need help).
Best, Simon _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
