Re: Accidental placement when some accidentals are suppressed

[Janek Warchoł]

2013/6/11 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Timothy Lanfear <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> I'm not top posting.
>>
>
>> \version "2.17.20"
>>
>> \layout { \accidentalStyle neo-modern }
>>
>> \relative c' {
>>   <cis eis gis>1
>>   <\single \omit Accidental c e \single \omit Accidental g>1
>> }
>
>> If I suppress some accidentals of a chord with \single \omit (which will
>> make sense in the context of the score I am setting), the remaining
>> accidentals are placed as if the suppressed accidentals are still present.
>> Is this the expected behaviour?
>
> My vote would be on "no".  It would be expected behavior if you had used
> \single\hide instead of \single\omit.
>
> Not all code deals gracefully with \omit.  It would be my suspicion that
> using unusual fonts or scaled accidentals would then also prove
> problematic, so just special-casing the stencil = ##f condition might
> not be sufficient for dealing with all stencil-related special cases.
>
> At any rate, it may be a low-priority problem, but it can reasonably be
> called a bug as it violates expectations.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user