Re: Is this possibly a bug?

[David Kastrup]

Mark Polesky <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Huh?  The behavior is unlike `dodecaphonic', but that does not make
>> thesecond part right.
>> 
>> "this rule never prints accidentals consistent with the key
>> signature"or "this rule only ever prints accidentals deviating
>> from/inconsistentwith the key signature".
>
> David,
>
> You are correct. How about "this rule never prints accidentals that
> [appear/are (already)] in the key signature"?

Sounds much better than my proposal, but does not cover naturals.  Which
were the original point of the original incorrect statement.

If somebody can propose something which sounds as nice as your variant
and still conveys the part of the original statement that had been
correct, that would be perfect.

I would probably add to "dodecaphonic" the sentence "Since the key
signature is essentially ignored, specifying it does not make much
sense." [Somebody please check whether this is right: if the key
signature is, say, f major, and we specify dodecaphonic and have a note
B sharp, do we get # before it (in which case the key signature is
indeed ignored) or do we get h# before it (in which case it isn't)?
Also I would consider it likely that the score for transposing
instruments should _not_ transpose the key, but that is probably better
done manually).]

But now to 'forget:

"Like dodecaphonic, this rule does not remember (and consequently
revert) any accidentals, but prints them only when differing from the
key signature."

-- 
David Kastrup