On Aug 26, 2014, at 21:56 , David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> wrote: > Knute Snortum <ksnortum <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > Adding an "n" modifier isn't saying that C Sharp is C Natural, it's an > > assertion. "Yes, I really mean natural. No, I didn't just forget the > > sharp." > > That sounds like a benefit, but I would think that people who value > "cn" for that reason would prefer a language definition that did not > include plain "c", so that Lilypond would not even produce output > based on such an error. > > > The "cn" would be used presumably to reflect the fact that the output will > have a natural sign. Requiring that C in C major be notated as "cn"--if I'm > understanding you correctly--doesn't make sense. > > —David OK, but my general point is the same. If “x” and “xn” are not intended to be used interchangeably, involving the computer will be more successful than continuing to rely on the human alone to detect mistakes. — Dan _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
