[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
From: |
Jan Warchoł |
Subject: |
Re: Bug in ties over barlines |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:47:13 +0100 |
2011/1/23 Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden>:
> On 23 January 2011 23:09, Joseph Haig <address@hidden> wrote:
>> {
>> \time 4/4
>> aes'1( a')
>> aes'~ aes'
>> aes'( aes')
>> }
>>
>> I believe that the first and third ties are displayed incorrectly.
>> Specifically, the first tie should have a natural in front of the
>> second note,
>
> Nope.
> Usual rules specify that an accidental is only valid within _one_
> (the current) measure[1]. The second a') (in the second measure) is not
> in the same measure, so no need to print the natural.
I don't agree. *Theoretically* accidental is not needed, but if it
would be omitted, how can you tell the difference between aes~ | aes
and aes( | a) ?
In my opinion accidental here is necessary (surely it may be
parenthesized). If it's necessary, it should be printed automatically
in my opinion.
cheers,
Janek
- Bug in ties over barlines, Joseph Haig, 2011/01/23
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Jan Warchoł, 2011/01/23
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, James Bailey, 2011/01/23
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Xavier Scheuer, 2011/01/23
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines,
Jan Warchoł <=
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Phil Holmes, 2011/01/24
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Joseph Haig, 2011/01/25
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Jan Warchoł, 2011/01/31
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Carl Sorensen, 2011/01/31
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Alexander Kobel, 2011/01/31
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, James Lowe, 2011/01/31
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Alexander Kobel, 2011/01/31