Re: Accidental and clef change issue

[Phil Holmes]

"David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote in message 
news:address@hidden
> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> > news:address@hidden
> > > "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > \relative c' {
> > > >  \clef bass cis2 c
> > > >  \clef tenor cis2 \clef bass c  % natural is not printed!!
> > > >  \clef bass cis2 \clef tenor c
> > > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you _please_ _never_ write an answer or comment in the _signature_
> > > of the original posting?  Sensible mailreaders don't quote the signature
> > > when replying, cutting away all of your content.
> >
> > Apologies. As you're probably aware, I'm a Windows man, and some
> > postings don't quote properly using my mailreader.
>
> I am sure that there are sensible configurations available also for
> Windows mailreasers.

Hey - you're talking about M$ software here!  (FWIW I use the same software 
for mail and news, - partly since the lilypond newsgroups are also mailing 
lists.  I don't want to change).

> > As a result, If I want all the > signs there, I have to put them in by
> > hand.  In this case, I didn't bother.
>
> You should at the very least delete the signature marker ("-- " on a
> line of its own).

Good tip.

> > > Now to your comment:
> > >
> > > > It's doing what I would expect from reading the regtest - i.e. - when
> > > > there is a clef change, the accidentals are reset to that which you'd
> > > > expect from the key.  Therefore, in your example we return to C major,
> > > > and so there's no need to print the accidental.  I'd welcome other
> > > > thoughts as to whether this is correct, though.
> > >
> > > I don't think it is correct.  If you set the above with \key g\major,
> > > you will notice that the key signature is _not_ repeated with a clef
> > > change.  So there is no visual or logical reason to assume
> > > "accidentals are reset".  If that was the underlying assumption for a
> > > clef change, the key signature would be repeated.
> >
> > So I'm confused as to what the regtest text cited means.  It
> > (accidental-clef-change.ly) says "Accidentals are reset for clef
> > changes."
>
> Which is likely the intent.  It is still not proper in my opinion.  I
> would suppose that a conservative approach would be to mark all
> non-signature accidentals in force at the time of the clef change in a
> manner that will cause a (sometimes cautionary) accidental to be printed
> regardless of whether the next note on the previously
> accidental-equipped is in-signature or not.
>
> That's sort of a half-reset of accidentals: it sets all non-signature
> accidentals basically to "unknown".

It seems to me that, unless there is a cast iron rule in the literature (and 
it would appear not to be the case) then the best option might be to treat 
the clef change as a bar-line and use cautionaries as appropriate.

--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad