wil
Richard Robinson wrote:
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#
