Re: dodecaphonic-no-repeat and missing accidentals

[Simon Albrecht]

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
> accidentals.

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