[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: accidental.ly regtest
From: |
Dmytro O. Redchuk |
Subject: |
Re: accidental.ly regtest |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:44:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Tue 14 Dec 2010, 12:29 Phil Holmes wrote:
> "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> news:address@hidden
> >"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> 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
- accidental.ly regtest, Phil Holmes, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, David Kastrup, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Phil Holmes, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, David Kastrup, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Phil Holmes, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest,
Dmytro O. Redchuk <=
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Carl Sorensen, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Trevor Daniels, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Dmytro O. Redchuk, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Phil Holmes, 2010/12/14
- Re: accidental.ly regtest, Patrick McCarty, 2010/12/14
Re: accidental.ly regtest, Jan WarchoĊ, 2010/12/14