Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com writes: In the following: \version 2.14.2 \score { \relative c' { \time 2/4 \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP) ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP)) \clef treble c8 a c d %%% Commenting out the following line solves the problem %%% \clef bass e fis d c } \layout {} } The clef change causes lilypond to error and not produce output. This also errors in 2.15., while 2.12 does not error. Is there some way around this? Ok, consider me annoyed now. Yes, we have some snippets documenting this sort of thing, but what is it even supposed to mean? The actual accidental _code_ knows two kinds of accidental entries: one _without_ octave entry for the key signature, and one _with_ octave entry _and_ bar/measure position for signifying a locally changed key signature by a particular accidental in the music with given note and octave and time. The actual code does not try making sense of a _key_ signature entry _with_ octave (and consequently without bar/measure position). And what is a key signature with octave location actually supposed to mean? Do we need an accidental for a note in key signature but one octave higher, or not? So I fail to make _any_ sense of your example. If I had to guess, I'd say the octave specifications are there for overriding the default octaves chosen by the key signature engraver, but without being fixed to a certain octave concerning their effect on the music. However, with _that_ interpretation, a clef change like you propose above leads to accidentals displayed up in the sky in ledger line domain. What's the key engraver to do in this case? Transpose the whole octave-enriched key signature down by entire octaves (thus keeping the arrangement of the scale) until it starts making sense again? Leave it in the sky with ledger lines? Without? What is your expectation? For what kind of music and situation is this useful? Without an answer to that question, I don't really know the direction the fix should be taking properly. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
clef change confuses manual key signature
In the following: \version 2.14.2 \score { \relative c' { \time 2/4 \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP) ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP)) \clef treble c8 a c d %%% Commenting out the following line solves the problem %%% \clef bass e fis d c } \layout {} } The clef change causes lilypond to error and not produce output. This also errors in 2.15., while 2.12 does not error. Is there some way around this? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
On Aug 14, 2012, at 5:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote: james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com writes: So I fail to make _any_ sense of your example. If I had to guess, I'd say the octave specifications are there for overriding the default octaves chosen by the key signature engraver, but without being fixed to a certain octave concerning their effect on the music. However, with _that_ interpretation, a clef change like you propose above leads to accidentals displayed up in the sky in ledger line domain. What's the key engraver to do in this case? Transpose the whole octave-enriched key signature down by entire octaves (thus keeping the arrangement of the scale) until it starts making sense again? Leave it in the sky with ledger lines? Without? What is your expectation? For what kind of music and situation is this useful? Without an answer to that question, I don't really know the direction the fix should be taking properly. Honestly, what's most important to me is where the sharps/flats in the key signature are placed. I attach the image of what I expect: \include deutsch.ly \version 2.12.3 \score { \new Staff \relative c'{ \time 1/4 \set Staff.keySignature = #`((9 . ,FLAT)) c4*1/3 d es f g a h a g f es d c4 } \new Staff \relative c' { a4*1/3 h c d e fis gis fis e d c h a4 } { %% Key Signatures \clef bass \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((-1 . -3) . ,SHARP) ((-1 . -4) . ,SHARP)) s4*2 | %1-18 \clef treble \set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP) ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP)) } \layout {} } \score { \new Staff \relative c'{ \time 1/4 \set Staff.keySignature = #`((9 . ,FLAT)) c4*1/3 d es f g a h a g f es d c4 } \new Staff \relative c' { a4*1/3 h c d e fis gis fis e d c h a4 } { %% Key Signatures \clef bass \set Staff.keySignature = #`((4 . ,SHARP) (3 . ,SHARP)) s4*2 | %1-18 \clef treble \set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f \set Staff.keySignature = #`((4 . ,SHARP) (3 . ,SHARP)) } \layout {} } I should note that making minor changes (like to the rhythm) may also solve the problem, but the important thing, for me at least, is that it shouldn't happen, regardless. key signatures_2.12.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com writes: Honestly, what's most important to me is where the sharps/flats in the key signature are placed. I attach the image of what I expect: That image does not make sense to me at all. Notes appear in key signature (though in a different octave) and still carry an accidental. How do you distinguish a normal key signature (valid across all octaves) from a restricted-octave one (valid only in one octave)? They look the same. I should note that making minor changes (like to the rhythm) may also solve the problem, but the important thing, for me at least, is that it shouldn't happen, regardless. I can't make sense of your score, and I can't even make sense of your sentences. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond