Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes: > On Aug 26, 2014, at 21:56 , David Nalesnik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Dan Eble <[email protected]> wrote: >> Knute Snortum <ksnortum <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Adding an "n" modifier isn't saying that C Sharp is C Natural, it's an >> > assertion. "Yes, I really mean natural. No, I didn't just forget the >> > sharp." >> >> That sounds like a benefit, but I would think that people who value >> "cn" for that reason would prefer a language definition that did not >> include plain "c", so that Lilypond would not even produce output >> based on such an error. >> >> >> The "cn" would be used presumably to reflect the fact that the >> output will have a natural sign. Requiring that C in C major be >> notated as "cn"--if I'm understanding you correctly--doesn't make >> sense. >> >> —David > > OK, but my general point is the same. If “x” and “xn” are not > intended to be used interchangeably, involving the computer will be > more successful than continuing to rely on the human alone to detect > mistakes.
There are no plans on making x and xn distinguishable in any manner that would engage the attention of LilyPond. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
