Eluze writes:
Phil Holmes-2 wrote
It's taken me a while to work out what's going on here, but it looks like
it's caused by an incorrect assumption in the snippet, and a change in
behaviour from \stemDown.
The incorrect assumption in that \stemDown isn't needed - it is. The red
notes are placed in an automatic 3rd voice, which has stems up by default.
Therefore, by default the tuplet numbers are above the notes. In 2.14,
stemDown also moved the tuplet numbers, and so the \stemDown command put
the
red tuplet numbers below the notes.
This behaviour has changed (I've not tracked why) and stemDown now only
alters the stems. So the red notes are forced to be stem down, but the
tuplet numbers remain above the notes - hence double numbers above the
notes. It can be corrected by using \voiceFour instead of \stemDown.
FWIW I think \stemDown should not move the tuplet numbers.
thanks for the quick resolution, Phil! (and I also think \voiceTwo/Four
would be better)
and thanks for adding a tracker to remember, Colin!
I was just about to create for this and had second thoughts.
Some time agoo the snippet was authored, or updated, to work with an
older version of Lilypond.
It produces ugly output on a recent Lilypond release because, as Phil
has explained, it uses features of Lilypond that have changed.
This must apply to many snippets, so I think, Eluze, you were right to
wonder if a tracker is required.
I don't mind creating a tracker but I think creating a tracker here
would be a result of my muddy thinking.
Agreed? No tracker?
Cheers,
Colin.