Re: accidentalStyle dodecaphonic-no-repeat

[Urs Liska]

Am 05.07.2014 16:49, schrieb Urs Liska:
> Am 05.07.2014 15:50, schrieb Jean-Charles Malahieude:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On my way in updating translations, I notice that this style seems to 
> > not do what it claims.
> >
> > Look at the two successive examples in NR-1.1.3 Automatic 
> > accidentals, both styles dodecaphonic and dodecaphonic-no-repeat: 
> > there is no difference at all.
>
> That's right, this is a bug, and I will look into it. I'm not on the 
> right PC to check right now, but I strongly assume it's an issue with 
> the doc example and not with the accidental style.
>
> Urs

It seems this accidental-style is actually broken.
The doc example is coded correctly, and testing the accidentalstyle in a 
document turns out the same result.

I know that it worked correctly when we added it, so it must have been 
broken later.
So it should be added as a bug.

To avoid misunderstandings:

cis d cis cis d

should print as

cis! d! cis! \once \omit Accidental cis d!


Urs