Sorry, I didn't know this is a known issue. And thanks for correcting me on how to actually remove the second sharp, Urs: \once \omit Accidental get's rid of the bugger, while \once \hide Accidental makes it transparent, leaving its space in tact.
Sven 2015-10-08 19:14 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <[email protected]>: > Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote: > >> Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis > >> is also removed. The issue is, without the \break the final fis > >> needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied > >> to the first fis. Adding the \break causes the second fis to > >> need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is > >> now redundant, is not removed. Seems to be a bug to me. > > > > And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked: > > <http://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/649/>. There has been > > some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both > > accidentals, and IMO the second should be left out. > > I don't think there's much of a disagreement on that. It's just that > it's quite tricky to do. The "remove tied accidental unless after line > break" is somewhat easy to do: the accidental in its final phase of > typesetting checks whether there is a tie leading to it and whether that > tie is just a broken-off part of a tie. If it is, the accidental is > killed. > > However, keeping track of the complex relation between this kind of > line-break related killed accidental and the following one is rather > harder to pin down since the following one needs to have no vicinity to > either tie or line break. > > -- > David Kastrup > >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
