Re: Skipping reminder accidentals in q

[James]

On 13/07/14 15:21, David Kastrup wrote:
> James <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 13/07/14 11:49, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Helge Kruse <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Am 13.07.2014 11:57, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>>
>>>>>     <fis a d fis>4<f! a d f!>  <f a d f>  q
>>>>> Well, just write the latter version.
>>>> Well. this means "don't use q when you have accidentals in a chord".
>>> Reminder or forced accidentals, it would appear.
>>>
>>>> My example has a fourth chord. Without it the latter version doesn't
>>>> have any q.
>>>>
>>>>> It appears I have
>>>>> mentioned this when entering issue 3593 as having _also_ been discussed,
>>>>> illustrating how important the bug squad is for not letting reports get
>>>>> dropped silently.
>>>>>
>>>> So is this considered as a bug? Since #3593 is closed it should be
>>>> recorded as a new bug?
>>> With q, it is more of an enhancement request.  With
>>> Completion_heads_engraver, it is more of a bug than a limitation because
>>> you cannot really work around it.
>>>
>>> Both are separate requests concerning separate code.
>>>
>> I am just not really understanding what technically these are as the
>> thread talks about 'note splitting' and the like and this thread talks
>> about repeated chords/notes using 'q'.
>>
>> So if you could give me some appropriate tracker titles, I can hunt down
>> the relevant threads and create the trackers more quickly.
> For q this thread is, as far as I remember, first mention.  For
> Completion_heads_engraver, there was the thread explicitly mentioned in
> the issue description of issue 3593.
>
> With Completion_heads_engraver the issue might be called
> "Completion_heads_engraver should not repeat forced/cautionary accidentals"
>
> I think the thread for that also mentioned articulations, but those are
> probably trickier: you'd likely want a tie/slur begin to move to the
> last generated note, but keep fingerings/text scripts on the first, and
> stuff like manual beams make my head hurt.  The first approximation
> would likely just drop all articulations on repeated notes.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4011

> For q (chord repeats), there is just one issue.
>
> "chord repeats should not repeat forced/cautionary accidentals".  That's
> pretty straightforward.
>
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4010

James