Ancient accidental inconsistencies?; Morgenlied quesitons.

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
>       http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.1/input/test/out-www/lily-971630970.ly 
> (ancient-accidentals.ly from http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.1/input/test/out-www/
> collated-files.html) on the website appears to show the same doubleflat 
> accidental across all styles (which appears to be the same as the default 
> doubleflat). Is this correct?

Probably.  Doubleflats are a recent invention. 

>       Are there any accidental choices to make a doublesharp with the dots to 
> its 
> left and right, or one with dots on all four sides?

Huh? What kind of accidentals are those?


>       Is this the proper place to mention bugs for cvs lilypond versions, or 
> is 
> bug-lilypond preferred for that too?

This list is fine. The -devel list is intended for discussion, the
-bugs list for reporting.

>       In http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.1/input/mutopia/F.Schubert/out-www/
> morgenlied.pdf on the end of the first line in the lyrical staff, the 
> extender line coming off of du appears to be smaller than a period. Is there 
> currently, or should there be a limit to valid extender line lengths?

I've added a limit.

>       In the same piece, within the vocal line, there are a lot of stem down 
> notes 
> despite when near the bottom of the staff. Was this a slip caused by double 
> voicing in measure 3, an attempt to clone the original, or desired for other 
> reasons? If still desired (or cloning), why should they go down? I'm still 
> attempting to get my hands on another score to compare to myself.

Thanks for the comments.The down stems were an encoding error.


-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen