Re: accidentalStyle dodecaphonic-no-repeat

[James]

On 05/07/14 18:13, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 05.07.2014 16:49, schrieb Urs Liska:
>> Am 05.07.2014 15:50, schrieb Jean-Charles Malahieude:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On my way in updating translations, I notice that this style seems
>>> to not do what it claims.
>>>
>>> Look at the two successive examples in NR-1.1.3 Automatic
>>> accidentals, both styles dodecaphonic and dodecaphonic-no-repeat:
>>> there is no difference at all.
>>
>> That's right, this is a bug, and I will look into it. I'm not on the
>> right PC to check right now, but I strongly assume it's an issue with
>> the doc example and not with the accidental style.
>>
>> Urs
>
> It seems this accidental-style is actually broken.
> The doc example is coded correctly, and testing the accidentalstyle in
> a document turns out the same result.
>
> I know that it worked correctly when we added it, so it must have been
> broken later.
> So it should be added as a bug.
>
> To avoid misunderstandings:
>
> cis d cis cis d
>
> should print as
>
> cis! d! cis! \once \omit Accidental cis d!
>
>
> Urs
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Thanks

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3992

James