[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: regtest

From: Dmytro O. Redchuk
Subject: Re: 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 ( would be less valuable if there
would be "\key c \major", let's say.

  Dmytro O. Redchuk
  Bug Squad

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]