Re: an "odd" accidental problem...

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Am 27.07.2018 um 16:01 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:
> Addenda et corrigenda:
>
> I was mistaken, my example shown wasn't an example of D-sharp, but actually
> D-natural. So the order of accidentals is comprehensible.
>
> This becomes clear when taking the preceding measure (at the end of the
> preceding line) into account:
>
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/fuchs-accidentals2.png>
>
> The original D-flat will be turned into a D-natural and from there (!) into
> a D-sharp.  There is no need for a natural sign because the preceding
> D-natural.
> In the next bar, the first sharp seems to be a cautionary accidental
> (reminding of the D-sharp in the preceding measure) with a natural directly
> behind, yielding a D-natural again.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but if you mean what I think 
you mean, I don't think that's reasonable.

First, I can't think how a sharp could ever be used as a "cautionary" 
accidental in a piece with "flat"-type key signature.

Second, in the second line of the quoted snippet, I see the following:
- The 9th 16th note is d-natural.
- The 5th 16th note is different from the 9th 16th note.

These two together make it clear to me that the 5th 16th note should be 
a d-sharp.

Also, the combination of sharp-natural-notehead seems to make sense to 
me if taken as a kind of prefix operator:

notehead alone = d-flat
natural + notehead = d-natural
sharp+(natural + notehead) = d-sharp

... and then omit parens, assuming associativity ;-).

Or is this what you wanted to say, anyway?

Best
Lukas