On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:45 AM, "Dmytro O. Redchuk" <brownian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Because you want to ensure that it behaves properly. The best fix, IMO, would be to add "The first note has a natural followed by a sharp" at the beginning of the description. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
