Comment #10 on issue 298 by [email protected]: Ties do not appear when
shortened because of an accidental
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=298
Thanks for pointing this out. It's true, the tie between the 2nd and 3rd C,
though it might be too high, is no longer absent, as it was in post #3.
That's an improvement, and suggests that ties might no longer become too
short by avoiding accidentals -- which is the explicit subject of this
issue 298 (but not of issues 840 and 1219 which have been merged into it).
Though I haven't re-tested it, I see no reason to think that ties might not
still become too short by avoiding flags. I argued (in post #8) that this
is true even in examples like #2 or #9 (referring to the tie between the
1st and 2nd C), but I think the severity of the ties-too-short issue would
increase from "enhancement" to "defect" if there were a line-break at the
first barline in #9 -- as previously demonstrated in a similar example here:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1219#c8
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
