lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals

 From: Dan Eble Subject: Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 23:00:41 -0400


On 9 Aug 2009, at 18:53, David Kastrup wrote:


Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:


On 9 Aug 2009, at 18:21, Mark Polesky wrote:


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.



OK, but what I was trying to ask is, is it a *correct* behavior of the
\bar command? Saying that something is so differs from saying that it
should be so.



For \bar "", it is probable sensible behavior. For visible bar lines, I
feel hard put to feel the same.



Agreed about invisible bars, but maybe with the additional restriction that there is no line break. If a conductor told you to start at the second line of this piece, would you end up embarrassed? (If not, what if the break were a page turn?)

\version "2.12.1"
\include "english.ly"

\relative c''
{
\key g \minor
c4 c b \bar "" \break b | c1
}
--
Dan