Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> 2015-10-08 15:40 GMT+02:00 Sven <address@hidden>:
>> Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to replicate
>> some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie over a system
>> break:
>>
>> \version "2.18.2"
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>>   r2. fis,4~ | \break
>>   fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
>>   }
>>
>>
>> LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the second
>> one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar in close
>> succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To hide the second
>> sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t in front of
>> it. Is this the preferred way of doing hiding that sharp?
>>
>> I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to avoid
>> repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?
>>
>> Sven
>
>
> Is a tied note with Accidental after line-break "in close succession"?
> Opinions differ.
>
> Anyway, the documented method to use:
>
> \override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t

Ah, but he was not talking about the tied accidental after the break.
He was talking about the accidental following the tied accidental after
the break.  Namely issue 649.

-- 
David Kastrup