> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:15:21 +0200
> From: Christian Mondrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[... I wrote ...]
> > My proposal of \ctnry\ has the advantage, that it works with relative
> > accidentals, too, without having to think about whether e.g. "ff"
> > generates a natural or a flat or whether e.g. "fs" generates a sharp or a
> > natural.
>
> The below example demonstrates that Don's macros *do* support relative
> accidentals which I always use.
I didn't say that Don's solution does not support relative accidentals.
The advantage of my solution is that for all cases you write \ctnry\
without thinking about which accidental is requested at all :-)
-- Werner
