Re: turning a blind eye to dotted note

[David Kastrup]

bb <address@hidden> writes:

> There was such a lot of information in all the responses, thanks.
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/bar-lines-and-bar-checks.en.html
> Bar lines
> Bar checks
> I have read this and I think to understand.
>
> \cadenzaOn does not set or check barlines and opens freedom to the
> user, nice, I used that already.

\cadenzaOn stops in-measure time.  That also affects automatic beaming.

> Let me come back to my original example:
> \version "2.19.80"
> mus = \relative { d4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis }
> <<
>   \new Voice \mus
>>>
>
> The point in the example is, that there is one 16th to much in the
> bar, not one missing. If I count, I get 17/16 in the bar! And I wonder
> that lilypond is seting automatically a barline after that 17/16
> without complaining? In my understanding that is wrong!

Your understanding is wrong.  See for example

> What I would do or awaiting lilypond to do is splitting up that last
> 8th note into 2 16th note and connect it with a tie! Than this is a
> correct notation.

The Completion_heads_engraver can do that.  It's not the default because
it's not the default in music.

> The "math", 16/16 in one bar with 4/4 is right.
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/ties-and-slurs.en.html
>
> \version "2.19.80"
> mus = \relative c'' {
> d4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis16 (gis16)
> }
> <<
>   \new Voice \mus
>>>

When you want a bar check, write a bar check.

-- 
David Kastrup