[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals

From: Mark Polesky
Subject: Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:21:42 -0700 (PDT)

Dan Eble wrote:
> I appreciate your reply.  Applying this statement to certain
> other figures (e.g. key signature or clef) would indicate a bug.
> Does a non-functional bar line differ from those?

I wouldn't apply that statement to other figures. This is a
specific behavior of the \bar command.

> I thought that all bar lines affect line breaking, even
> invisible ones.

You're right, they're not *purely* visual. How's this:

Note that manual bar lines behave differently than automatic bar
lines. Manual bar lines can affect line-breaking, but they don't
affect any of the other properties that an automatic bar line
would, such as measure numbers, accidentals, repeats, etc. Also,
subsequent automatic bar lines are not relocated following a
manual bar line. And when a manual bar line is placed where an
automatic bar line already exists, only the visual appearance is

> Should the manual explain that a feature doesn't work as
> expected, but stop short of citing a work around?

No, of course not, though different users may have different

> I am aware of "!" which could be used in this situation, but is
> there anything better? Is there something I could wrap in a
> variable to insert a bar line and reset the accidental state as
> if it were a new measure?
> ...
> In case it is relevant, here is the applied function. (I know
> it's not perfect. For one thing, the double bar lines still
> consume space when they are invisible.)

I'll try to look at this at some point.
- Mark

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]