David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com> writes: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: guoguocuozuoduo <brian777...@hotmail.com> > Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM > Subject: RE: Accidentals on repeated notes separated by rests in certain > styles > To: David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com> > > >>There should be for neo-modern, neo-modern-cautionary, neo-modern-voice, > neo-modern-voice-cautionary, but not dodecaphonic-no->repeat. > > For the record, I think that all of the styles should suppress the repeated > accidental, or none should. It comes down to whether the same pitch > separated by a rest should be considered an immediate repetition. I think > so. Consider the following: > > { fis'4-. fis'-. } > > vs. > > { fis'8 r fis' r } > > It doesn't make much sense to me that there should be a difference in > behavior between the two in any style which detects immediate repetition.
So what about { { fis'8 r8 r4 r4 r8 fis'8 } \\ { r8 cis'8 f' r2 } } ? Should neo-modern-voice really consider the second fis'8 a repetition of the first one? I think that's stretching it. A lot. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user