[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Tuesday 17 August 2004 00.46, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > With 2.3.11, I understand that the notation \notes \relative c {..} is
> > > ambiguous. But I'm surprised tha
On Tuesday 17 August 2004 00.46, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With 2.3.11, I understand that the notation \notes \relative c {..} is
> > ambiguous. But I'm surprised that it even is forbidden.. is this
> > intentional?
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi,
>
> With 2.3.11, I understand that the notation \notes \relative c {..} is
> ambiguous. But I'm surprised that it even is forbidden.. is this intentional?
Yes. \notes is no longer necessary, and references to it will be
removed from the manua
Hi,
With 2.3.11, I understand that the notation \notes \relative c {..} is
ambiguous. But I'm surprised that it even is forbidden.. is this intentional?
The following file gives a syntax error:
\version "2.3.11"
\notes \r
