Re: tied sharps after line break

[Martin Tarenskeen]

Ah I see. Yes that's the one.

Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 18:21:59 +00:00:00 schreef Werner LEMBERG 
:



 2. LilyPond's default behaviour in this situation is (in my opinion)
 sub-optimal.


It's a bug known since 15 years...

  


Werner

Re: tied sharps after line break

[Werner LEMBERG]

> 2. LilyPond's default behaviour in this situation is (in my opinion)
> sub-optimal.

It's a bug known since 15 years...

  https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/649


Werner

Re: tied sharps after line break

[Martin Tarenskeen]

Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 18:58:45 +01:00:00 schreef Hans Aikema 
:
Does not yet cover the case Martin was looking for - omitting the 
second accidental in a situation of a line-break on a tied accidental.


Can be done however by an explicit \omit, which should be only \once, 
because otherwise it would omit accidentals from that point onwards.


The correct rendering (also showing the subsequent re-occurrence in 
the next bar) is done by this snippet:


%%%
\relative c' {
c4 c c cis ~ |
\break
cis \once \omit Accidental cis cis d | cis cis cis d
}
%%%

The disadvantage of it is that this can only be used with an explicit 
line break, as it will also be omitted if there is no linebreak on 
the tied note.


Ok, thank's a lot. That will do the trick for now but it also tells me 
2 things:

1. Anything is possible, but not always in the easiest way
2. LilyPond's default behaviour in this situation is (in my opinion) 
sub-optimal.


MT

Re: tied sharps after line break

[Hans Aikema]

Does not yet cover the case Martin was looking for - omitting the second 
accidental in a situation of a line-break on a tied accidental.

Can be done however by an explicit \omit, which should be only \once, because 
otherwise it would omit accidentals from that point onwards.

The correct rendering (also showing the subsequent re-occurrence in the next 
bar) is done by this snippet:

%%%
\relative c' {
c4 c c cis ~ |
\break
cis \once \omit Accidental cis cis d | cis cis cis d
}
%%%

The disadvantage of it is that this can only be used with an explicit line 
break, as it will also be omitted if there is no linebreak on the tied note.


> On 3 Mar 2024, at 18:47, Damian leGassick  wrote:
> 
> I had this yesterday, wasn’t immediately obvious but
> 
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/notation/accidentals
> 
> hth
> 
> Damian
> 
>> On 3 Mar 2024, at 17:39, Martin Tarenskeen  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 18:33:26 +01:00:00 schreef Hans Aikema 
>> :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 3 Mar 2024, at 17:26, Martin Tarenskeen  wrote:
 
 
 Hi LilyPonders,
 
 I bumped into a situation similar to this tiny example (In the real score 
 the linebreak happened at such a situation without a forced \break but the 
 result was the same):
 
 \relative c' {
 c4 c c cis ~ |
 \break
 cis cis cis d |
 }
 
 the sharp sign in the 2nd bar is printed twice. I am not sure if that's 
 the correct behaviour?
 Without a \break the sharp is not printed for the tied 1st cis in the 2nd 
 bar, and only repeated for the 2nd cis in the 2nd bar.
  I can imagine the reason to print the sharp sign after a linebreak and/or 
 pagebreak. But in such a case I would not repeat the sharp on the snd 
 quarter.
>>> 
>>> The proposed behavior by Elain Gould in Behind bars (p 80) is to have a 
>>> single sharp, without braces, on the second line before the tied note.
 
>> 
>> Yes, that's what I had in mind. How can I prevent LilyPond from printing a 
>> second sharp in the second bar?
>> 
>> MT

Re: tied sharps after line break

[Damian leGassick]

I had this yesterday, wasn’t immediately obvious butAccidentals (LilyPond Notation Reference)lilypond.orghthDamianOn 3 Mar 2024, at 17:39, Martin Tarenskeen  wrote:Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 18:33:26 +01:00:00 schreef Hans Aikema :On 3 Mar 2024, at 17:26, Martin Tarenskeen  wrote:Hi LilyPonders,I bumped into a situation similar to this tiny example (In the real score the linebreak happened at such a situation without a forced \break but the result was the same):\relative c' {c4 c c cis ~ |\breakcis cis cis d |}the sharp sign in the 2nd bar is printed twice. I am not sure if that's the correct behaviour?Without a \break the sharp is not printed for the tied 1st cis in the 2nd bar, and only repeated for the 2nd cis in the 2nd bar. I can imagine the reason to print the sharp sign after a linebreak and/or pagebreak. But in such a case I would not repeat the sharp on the snd quarter.The proposed behavior by Elain Gould in Behind bars (p 80) is to have a single sharp, without braces, on the second line before the tied note.Yes, that's what I had in mind. How can I prevent LilyPond from printing a second sharp in the second bar?MT

Re: tied sharps after line break

[Martin Tarenskeen]

Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 18:33:26 +01:00:00 schreef Hans Aikema 
:




On 3 Mar 2024, at 17:26, Martin Tarenskeen  
wrote:



Hi LilyPonders,

I bumped into a situation similar to this tiny example (In the real 
score the linebreak happened at such a situation without a forced 
\break but the result was the same):


\relative c' {
c4 c c *cis* *~* |
\break
*cis* *cis* cis d |
}

the sharp sign in the 2nd bar is printed twice. I am not sure if 
that's the correct behaviour?
Without a \break the sharp is not printed for the tied 1st cis in 
the 2nd bar, and only repeated for the 2nd cis in the 2nd bar.
 I can imagine the reason to print the sharp sign after a linebreak 
and/or pagebreak. But in such a case I would not repeat the sharp on 
the snd quarter.


The proposed behavior by Elain Gould in Behind bars (p 80) is to have 
a single sharp, without braces, on the second line before the tied 
note.




Yes, that's what I had in mind. How can I prevent LilyPond from 
printing a second sharp in the second bar?


MT

Re: tied sharps after line break

[Hans Aikema]

> On 3 Mar 2024, at 17:26, Martin Tarenskeen  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi LilyPonders,
> 
> I bumped into a situation similar to this tiny example (In the real score the 
> linebreak happened at such a situation without a forced \break but the result 
> was the same):
> 
> \relative c' {
> c4 c c cis ~ |
> \break
> cis cis cis d |
> }
> 
> the sharp sign in the 2nd bar is printed twice. I am not sure if that's the 
> correct behaviour?
> Without a \break the sharp is not printed for the tied 1st cis in the 2nd 
> bar, and only repeated for the 2nd cis in the 2nd bar.
>  I can imagine the reason to print the sharp sign after a linebreak and/or 
> pagebreak. But in such a case I would not repeat the sharp on the snd quarter.

The proposed behavior by Elain Gould in Behind bars (p 80) is to have a single 
sharp, without braces, on the second line before the tied note.

> 
> Is this a bug or a discussable way to interpret the conventions? 
> And: how can I override the current behaviour and choose where to print or 
> not print sharps whenever I want to?
> 
> MT
> 
> 
> 
> 

tied sharps after line break

[Martin Tarenskeen]

Hi LilyPonders,

I bumped into a situation similar to this tiny example (In the real 
score the linebreak happened at such a situation without a forced 
\break but the result was the same):


\relative c' {
   c4 c c *cis* *~* |
   \break
   *cis* *cis* cis d |
}

the sharp sign in the 2nd bar is printed twice. I am not sure if that's 
the correct behaviour?
Without a \break the sharp is not printed for the tied 1st cis in the 
2nd bar, and only repeated for the 2nd cis in the 2nd bar.
I can imagine the reason to print the sharp sign after a linebreak 
and/or pagebreak. But in such a case I would not repeat the sharp on 
the snd quarter.


Is this a bug or a discussable way to interpret the conventions?
And: how can I override the current behaviour and choose where to print 
or not print sharps whenever I want to?


MT





test-tie.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
\version "2.23.1"

\relative c' {
  c4 c c cis ~ |
  \break
  cis cis cis d |
}