Re: Misleading autobeaming in 3/4

[David Kastrup]

Damian leGassick <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm sorry to contradict David but you'll be hard pushed to find many
> published examples of 4. 8 [8 8] that don't have mitigating phrasing
> circumstances.

If you take a look at the comments of the bug report, you'll see that
you come in second for contradicting me, myself being first.

I've added additional musings, basically stating that I should consider
4. [8 8 8] correct in 3/4, but 4~ 8 [8 8 8] wrong, rather preferring to
see 4~ 8 8 [8 8].  Which is pretty hard to cast into
computer-comprehensible rules...

-- 
David Kastrup