Mark Polesky <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Huh? The behavior is unlike `dodecaphonic', but that does not make >> thesecond part right. >> >> "this rule never prints accidentals consistent with the key >> signature"or "this rule only ever prints accidentals deviating >> from/inconsistentwith the key signature". > > David, > > You are correct. How about "this rule never prints accidentals that > [appear/are (already)] in the key signature"?
Sounds much better than my proposal, but does not cover naturals. Which were the original point of the original incorrect statement. If somebody can propose something which sounds as nice as your variant and still conveys the part of the original statement that had been correct, that would be perfect. I would probably add to "dodecaphonic" the sentence "Since the key signature is essentially ignored, specifying it does not make much sense." [Somebody please check whether this is right: if the key signature is, say, f major, and we specify dodecaphonic and have a note B sharp, do we get # before it (in which case the key signature is indeed ignored) or do we get h# before it (in which case it isn't)? Also I would consider it likely that the score for transposing instruments should _not_ transpose the key, but that is probably better done manually).] But now to 'forget: "Like dodecaphonic, this rule does not remember (and consequently revert) any accidentals, but prints them only when differing from the key signature." -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
