Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Sven]

Sorry, I didn't know this is a known issue.

And thanks for correcting me on how to actually remove the second sharp,
Urs: \once \omit Accidental get's rid of the bugger, while \once \hide
Accidental makes it transparent, leaving its space in tact.

Sven

2015-10-08 19:14 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

> Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> >> Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
> >> is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
> >> needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
> >> to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
> >> need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
> >> now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.
> >
> > And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked:
> > <http://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/649/>. There has been
> > some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both
> > accidentals, and IMO the second should be left out.
>
> I don't think there's much of a disagreement on that.  It's just that
> it's quite tricky to do.  The "remove tied accidental unless after line
> break" is somewhat easy to do: the accidental in its final phase of
> typesetting checks whether there is a tie leading to it and whether that
> tie is just a broken-off part of a tie.  If it is, the accidental is
> killed.
>
> However, keeping track of the complex relation between this kind of
> line-break related killed accidental and the following one is rather
> harder to pin down since the following one needs to have no vicinity to
> either tie or line break.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
>