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

[James Lowe]

Hello,

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith OHara <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 04:03:24 +0000
To: bug-lilypond <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary accidental after tied note at the beginning of a
new system

>Neil Puttock <n.puttock <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>On 6 March 2011 16:34, Zoltan Selyem <sese <at> elte.hu> wrote:
>>>
>>> % 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.
>>I agree.[...]
>>http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=649
>>Cheers,
>>Neil
>
>Stone, p55, agrees with Neil and Zoltan,
>in that Kurt Stone says the accidental "need not be repeated" if it
>follows the
>same repeated accidental due to a tie being broken across lines.

It seems that people can bring out counter-examples from both camps. My
own feeling is that in the end it is always going to be easier to write
'?' on a note than an (\once) \override on a score where it IS printed and
someone doesn't want it.

James