Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> 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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user