On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> wrote: > "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> "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 agree that this regtest may be confusing if you are trying to understand it based on the texinfo description. IMO it would be best, as others have mentioned, to clarify the regtest description. The notation of using a natural-sharp (or a natural-flat) is pretty standard. I'm thinking of Beethoven's Op. 26 (mvt. 3), where natural-flats are used to clarify that particular notes no longer have double-flats, and instead use a single flat. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
