David Kastrup wrote:
> Huh? The behavior is unlike `dodecaphonic', but that does not make
> thesecond part right.
>
> "this rule never prints accidentals consistent with the key
> signature"or "this rule only ever prints accidentals deviating
> from/inconsistentwith the key signature".
David,
You are correct. How about "this rule never prints accidentals that
[appear/are (already)] in the key signature"?
- Mark
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
