Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Morley" <address@hidden>
To: "Sven" <address@hidden>
Cc: "lilypond-user" <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Accidentals tied over a system break


> 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


I don't believe the OP is complaining about the sharp after the break: 
rather the sharp on the last sounded note.  That doesn't appear needed, 
since we already have a sharp shown on the first note in the bar.

--
Phil Holmes