[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: regtest

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: regtest
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:55:28 -0700

On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:45 AM, "Dmytro O. Redchuk"  
<address@hidden> wrote:

> 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.
Because you want to ensure that it behaves properly. The best fix,  
IMO, would be to add "The first note has a natural followed by a  
sharp" at the beginning of the description.



reply via email to

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