Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals

[Dan Eble]

On 9 Aug 2009, at 18:53, David Kastrup wrote:

> Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On 9 Aug 2009, at 18:21, Mark Polesky wrote:
> >
> > > Dan Eble wrote:
> > > > I appreciate your reply.  Applying this statement to certain
> > > > other figures (e.g. key signature or clef) would indicate a bug.
> > > > Does a non-functional bar line differ from those?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't apply that statement to other figures. This is a
> > > specific behavior of the \bar command.
> >
> > OK, but what I was trying to ask is, is it a *correct* behavior of  
> > the
> > \bar command? Saying that something is so differs from saying that it
> > should be so.
>
> For \bar "", it is probable sensible behavior.  For visible bar  
> lines, I
> feel hard put to feel the same.

Agreed about invisible bars, but maybe with the additional restriction  
that there is no line break.  If a conductor told you to start at the  
second line of this piece, would you end up embarrassed?  (If not,  
what if the break were a page turn?)

\version "2.12.1"
\include "english.ly"

\relative c''
{
   \key g \minor
   c4 c b \bar "" \break b | c1
}
--
Dan