Re: desired behaviour

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 01:53:59AM -0800, Keith OHara wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:19:04 -0800, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:
> >Can you (or anybody
> >else) create a different example, or modify the existing one?
> 
> I was thinking of one real bug that was re-reported last week, which can be 
> extremely brief:
> 
> % There should be a natural printed after the sharp
> \version "2.12.3"
> << f' \\ fis' >>

I'd rather not use an existing bug for this.  Partly because I
want to avoid the temptation/requirement to change the example
whenever we fix that bug, but also because I'd rather keep a
positive attitude on that page.  Implicitly, "here's a great
example of a bug report, which has been fixed in part because of
the good report"

How about pretending that the #octavation command printed the
dotted line, but did not change the position of the note head?  We
could make the top comment:
% the octavation command should move the notehead
% an octave lower as well as printing a dotted line,
% but in this version it only moves the notehead without
% printing a dotted line

hmm, that's a bit too wordy.  I think we can remove half the words
without losing the meaning, but it's just an example.

> The regression tests are of this form, and I think a lot came from real bugs.
> This one makes the point that correct notation is not always immediately 
> obvious:
> 
> % Accidentals should be printed for only the first note in a tie
> \version "2.10.1"
> \relative c'' {
>   bes1 ~ |
>   bes1
> }

What about using this one?  It's even shorter, it captures the
essence, and seems ideal.  (personally I'd remove the barline
check because it's not necessary, but other than that it's
perfect)

Cheers,
- Graham