[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: regtest

From: Patrick McCarty
Subject: Re: regtest
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:39:24 -0800

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
> "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> "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 agree that this regtest may be confusing if you are trying to
understand it based on the texinfo description.

IMO it would be best, as others have mentioned, to clarify the regtest

The notation of using a natural-sharp (or a natural-flat) is pretty
standard.  I'm thinking of Beethoven's Op. 26 (mvt. 3), where
natural-flats are used to clarify that particular notes no longer have
double-flats, and instead use a single flat.


reply via email to

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