Re: Strange cautionary

[David Kastrup]

Eluze <address@hidden> writes:

> Phil Holmes-2 wrote
>>> Phil Holmes wrote
>>>> What's the cautionary on the 3rd beat of the second bar doing there?
>> 
>>> after reading all this I feel the current behavior is correct
>> 
>> 
>> It also disappears if you get rid of the ties in the previous bar, left 
>> hand.  If it's not there without the tie, surely it shouldn't be there
>> with 
>> the tie?
>
> ok, I read the rules and descriptions again and - still being confused by
> scrolling up and down between the different styles - I tend to confirm your
> opinion (for the styles being discussed here):
>
> accidentals are valid for a whole measure and should not be repeated (also
> not as a cautionary accidental)
>
> so this qualifies as bug!?

I think that one can describe the behavior as matching the definition in
some narrow respect.  We have several rules in action here:

A tied note with continued non-key accidental does not get an accidental
of its own (except after a line-break, cf issue 649) and any following
note with the same accidental needs a reminder, but a following note
with the default (key signature) accidental _also_ needs an explicit
accidental.  So this counts as an "need an accidental whatever will come
next" case.

Then we have the additional rule that conflicting information from a
different octave calls for an explicit accidental too, and the above
managed to run under "conflicting information".

So the behavior seems to match the rules we have defined, but the rules
as a whole don't match common sense.

Or in other words: the code seems to work as intended/specified, but the
intentions/specifications are deficient.

-- 
David Kastrup