On Tue 14 Dec 2010, 12:29 Phil Holmes wrote: > "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message > news:87zks835z9....@lola.goethe.zz... > >"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > > >>Well - because it's unusual. Far more common to have a sharp on a > >>natural note in the key sig, or a natural on a flat, for example. > > > >And a regtest should not test unusual things? > > > >I still fail to see why. > > It's not actually testing the use of a natural-sharp in a flats key > sig. It's testing the display of accidentals on the subsequent > notes. My reason for suggesting changing it is that, if you've > limited exposure to all forms of music, and you're looking at this > test to see if it's working properly, then you may concentrate on > the unusual aspect of the flat-to-sharp change, and miss an error > elsewhere. I would agree.
Well, i was trying to remember what is current defaults for extra naturals, then to guess whether this relates to extra naturals or not at all... Why? I fail to see why this test (accidental.ly) would be less valuable if there would be "\key c \major", let's say. -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
