[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: |
Mark Polesky |
|
Subject: |
Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals |
|
Date: |
Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:38:23 -0700 (PDT) |
Dan Eble wrote:
> 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.
The way I see it, the \bar command itself is a workaround...
- Mark
- 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 <=
- Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals, David Kastrup, 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