[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in ties over barlines
From: |
James Lowe |
Subject: |
Re: Bug in ties over barlines |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:06:12 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 |
hello
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Kobel <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:14:23 +0100
To: Jan Warchoł <address@hidden>
Cc: lilypond-user <address@hidden>, bug-lilypond
<address@hidden>, lilypond-devel <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug in ties over barlines
>By the way: if you have { r2.. cis8( | c2!) r2 } all over the place,
>and then there suddenly comes a { r2 cis2~ | cis2 r2 }, you'd expect an
>additional sharp there too, don't you?
Hmm...why not use (in your example) { r2.. cis8( | c2?) r2 } which to me
makes more sense. After all, assuming you are in C-major here then why
would you NOT use a cautionary than a regular accidental. In this case you
would NOT need to put the additional sharp in your second example.
No one (as I can see) has spoken about the ? Vs ! And I think that's the
difference for me. It depends on what is already sharp/flat in the key
signature as a musician. ! Means it isn't and ? Means it is but 'be aware'
right?
James
- 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, 2011/01/23
- 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 <=
- Re: Bug in ties over barlines, Alexander Kobel, 2011/01/31