On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:19:44AM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote: > > > >Is "K:D exp _b _e ^f" different from "K:D _b _e ^f" ? > > >Where does this come from, has it been mentioned before ? > > > > As I have always understood the standard, the accidentals following it > > *modify* the key sig. So > > > > K:D _b _e ^f actuall leaves also a c^. The point of the exp is to > > *override* the normal key sig of D. > > You have fully understood it. I think that the problems > of possible ambiguity in key signature notation are now > solved.
To me, the existing jcabc2ps understanding of it [1] seems much more elegant and I can't see any reason to require this change, but I suppose that's between you and the people who write the code. [1] The given example actually produces 1 sharp and 2 flats, ie is equivalent to "D exp". If you want the "D" to mean "the normal key sig of D" you can get it by saying, explicitly, "K:Dmaj _b_e^f", which will get the c# -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
