RE: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a new system

[Peter Sisak]

I disagree. The "second" accidental there serves a clarification purpose. 
Otherwise, it would remain unclear if the carried-over accidental is effective 
there or not. You most likely can suppress it, or parenthesize it, if that's 
what you wish, but generally speaking, it helps in interpreting difficult 
pieces, particularly atonal ones.
 
Peter
 
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:34:43 +0100
From: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Subject: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a new system

 
% Hello,
%
% Accidentals on tied notes are printed at the beginning of a new
% system. But I think that in these cases there should be no second
% accidental in that measure.
%
% So I think measure 5, 9, and 13 are wrong in the following example:
 
\version "2.13.53"
\paper{ ragged-right = ##t }
\relative a' {
  \key f \major
  as2 as~ | as as~ | \break
  as~ as~ | as as~ | \break
  as as | b b~ | \break
  b~ b~ | b b~ | \break
  b b | cis cis~ | \break
  cis~ cis~ | cis cis~ | \break
  cis cis 
}
 
%
%
% Zoltan

_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list 
address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond