[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dodecaphonic-no-repeat and missing accidentals

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: dodecaphonic-no-repeat and missing accidentals
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:09:55 +0200

On 13.09.2016 17:35, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:
As the example above shows, when a second note or chord is not identical to
a first chord but contains one or more identical pitches, these do not get

Which I think is perfectly in line with the intended behaviour of the accidental rule.

I don't think this behaviour is correct, as it leads to a very
confusing output.

That’s quite flawed logics – whether or not you find it confusing doesn’t have anything to do with it being correct or not.

IMO, the best approach is the following: if a note is
identical to a previous note or if a chord is identical to a previous chord,
then their accidentals are omitted, else print all accidentals.

Then maybe we should provide different options, or you just have to create your own accidental style (which I already made a bit easier; ask back on the user list if you need help).

Best, Simon

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]