Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Sven]

Sorry, I didn't know this is a known issue.

And thanks for correcting me on how to actually remove the second sharp, Urs: \once \omit Accidental get's rid of the bugger, while \once \hide Accidental makes it transparent, leaving its space in tact.

Sven

2015-10-08 19:14 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
>> is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
>> needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
>> to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
>> need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
>> now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.
>
> And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked:
> <http://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/649/>. There has been
> some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both
> accidentals, and IMO the second should be left out.

I don't think there's much of a disagreement on that.  It's just that
it's quite tricky to do.  The "remove tied accidental unless after line
break" is somewhat easy to do: the accidental in its final phase of
typesetting checks whether there is a tie leading to it and whether that
tie is just a broken-off part of a tie.  If it is, the accidental is
killed.

However, keeping track of the complex relation between this kind of
line-break related killed accidental and the following one is rather
harder to pin down since the following one needs to have no vicinity to
either tie or line break.

--
David Kastrup