Hi Simon, First of all, thanks for your reply!
>> 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. Yes, I express myself very badly, the word correct does not apply there at all. It's not good to talk about "correctness" concerning accidental rules given that they tend to vary a lot from composer to composer or from publishing house to publishing house, and there is no single "correct solution". Also the current algorithm does what it's supposed to do, so in that sense it is also correct. So I retract that. > Which I think is perfectly in line with the intended behaviour of the > accidental rule. It surely is in line with the intended behaviour, I was just questioning if the behaviour itself wouldn't be better/more useful if modified as I proposed. I believe that the behaviour I proposed is fairly common. Some examples: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n194499/55.png> Berg's /Violin Concerto/ <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n194499/45.png> Boulez's /Anthemes II/ That said, I also came across several counterexamples -- even in scores of these same composers -- which would then follow the current dodecaphonic-no-repeat rules, so I guess the engravers/composers made decisions according to the context. > 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). I will give it a try by myself, and if I run into troubles I will post in the user list. Thanks again for the reply, kind regards, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/dodecaphonic-no-repeat-and-missing-accidentals-tp194485p194499.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
