[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Augmentation dot positioning
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: Augmentation dot positioning |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:33:45 +0200 (CEST) |
>>> Did you intentionally mark those examples with unnecessary dots as
>>> "OK", rather than "FAIL"?
Yes.
>>> In my opinion, they should probably be failure cases.
I don't think so. IMHO, the default should be value 0; if you
increase the value, more dots do appear, so it's not a failure if they
get displayed.
> The "Extension above 4-note line top cluster with a 3rd" examples
> for dot-limits 1,2 should also have "unnecessary dot on B space".
Please correct :-)
Werner
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, (continued)
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Simon Albrecht, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Werner LEMBERG, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Davide Liessi, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Werner LEMBERG, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/14
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Werner LEMBERG, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Carl Sorensen, 2016/09/15
- Message not available
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Carl Sorensen, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Carl Sorensen, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Carl Sorensen, 2016/09/15
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning, Chris Yate, 2016/09/15