[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121)
From: |
k-ohara5a5a |
Subject: |
Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121) |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:10:13 +0000 |
Sorry I didn't notice this before.
'relative-repeat.ly' was testing something different than you thought.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6454121/diff/12002/input/regression/relative-repeat.ly
File input/regression/relative-repeat.ly (left):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6454121/diff/12002/input/regression/relative-repeat.ly#oldcode2
input/regression/relative-repeat.ly:2: texidoc = "Relative mode for
repeats uses order of entry."
The point of the original regression test was that
\relative c' {
\repeat unfold 3 {f2 bes2}
\alternative { {a1}{e}{b} } }
is very different from a textual unfolding of the repeats.
\relative c' {f2 bes2 a1 f2 bes2 e f2 bes2 b }
Relative-pitch-entry, and default-durations follow the order of typed
input, not the order of printed output.
Barchecks and octave checks would make the test self-explanatory. Maybe
there are enough other uses of relative mode with repeats that we could
leave this one out.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6454121/diff/12002/input/regression/relative-repeat.ly
File input/regression/relative-repeat.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6454121/diff/12002/input/regression/relative-repeat.ly#newcode2
input/regression/relative-repeat.ly:2: texidoc = "Unfolded repeats take
alternative notes in the order
We don't need the replacement test, because 'repeat-unfold.ly' covers
that function.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6454121/
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), (continued)
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/08
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/08
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/08
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/08
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), PhilEHolmes, 2012/08/10
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), graham, 2012/08/10
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/13
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), PhilEHolmes, 2012/08/14
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121),
k-ohara5a5a <=
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), PhilEHolmes, 2012/08/18
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/18
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), graham, 2012/08/20
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), PhilEHolmes, 2012/08/21
- Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121), tdanielsmusic, 2012/08/21