On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:02:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> >> Now I've substituted
> >> (6 . ,FLAT)
> >> (3 . ,SHARP)
> >> (5 . ,FLAT)
> >> and now the alteration does hold in all octaves, as you
> >> and yo
David Kastrup writes:
> Alan McConnell writes:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:04:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> > There's a problem. I use
>>> > ((0 . 6) . ,FLAT)
>>> > ((1 . 3) . ,SHARP)
>>> > ((0 .
Alan McConnell writes:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:04:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> > There's a problem. I use
>> > ((0 . 6) . ,FLAT)
>> > ((1 . 3) . ,SHARP)
>> > ((0 . 5) . ,FLAT)
>> >for my placement of
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:04:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> > There's a problem. I use
> > ((0 . 6) . ,FLAT)
> > ((1 . 3) . ,SHARP)
> > ((0 . 5) . ,FLAT)
> > for my placement of the accidentals. Using the st
Alan McConnell patriot.net> writes:
> Bottom line: the accidentals in a non-traditional key signature
> have still got to cover all the octaves! Otherwise great
> confusion ensues.
>
You might be happier working with a _traditional_ key signature, then,
and simply use a different mode (in the
Alan McConnell writes:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 05:35:42PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> >Yes! Many thanks! I can see that I'm going to have to get
>> >familiar with the "snippets" file. I've ignored it up to
>> >now, since I'm working with v 2.14.2. But the code you've
>> >
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 05:35:42PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> > Yes! Many thanks! I can see that I'm going to have to get
> > familiar with the "snippets" file. I've ignored it up to
> > now, since I'm working with v 2.14.2. But the code you've
> > suggested works with 2.14
