[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:53:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:
> On 9 Aug 2009, at 18:21, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> Dan Eble wrote:
>>> I appreciate your reply. Applying this statement to certain
>>> other figures (e.g. key signature or clef) would indicate a bug.
>>> Does a non-functional bar line differ from those?
>>
>> I wouldn't apply that statement to other figures. This is a
>> specific behavior of the \bar command.
>
> OK, but what I was trying to ask is, is it a *correct* behavior of the
> \bar command? Saying that something is so differs from saying that it
> should be so.
For \bar "", it is probable sensible behavior. For visible bar lines, I
feel hard put to feel the same.
--
David Kastrup
- alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Frédéric Bron, 2009/08/08
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Dan Eble, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Frédéric Bron, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Mark Polesky, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Trevor Daniels, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Dan Eble, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Mark Polesky, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Dan Eble, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Mark Polesky, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Dan Eble, 2009/08/09
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, Mark Polesky, 2009/08/09