> > History: There used to be an ABC developers list, only. Then there was a
> > users list as well, then development issues started getting discussed on the
> > users list and a consensus seemed to develop that users were interested
> > enough in what went on that everything was on the users list. So now there
> > is only a users list, but it's used for everything. Not sure if the users
> > list is actually dead and rotted or if it exists but is unused. The
> > difference is academic anyway.
>
> I can't see why this justifies the assertion that the rules of abc are
> decided by democratic vote of developers. This IS the users list and a lot
> of users contribute to it but you're right that the difference is academic if
> (some) developers feel that they have some right by ancient precedent to
> ignore the wishes of users. [...]
The rules of abc are whatever Chris Walshaw decides they are. The developers
support or don't support software features as they see fit. They certainly
do have the right to ignore the wishes of users. And the users have the
right not to use the software if they don't like it (or to write their
own software).
Now that I have that off my chest... Yes, the developers try to
accomodate the needs of the users. But they are not making their living
selling software (at least not ABC software). They add features to their
software as time permits, and are usually organized enough to add the
important stuff first (according to their view of what's important).
> > Where a consensus emerges, things get done.
>
> No they don't. [...] the V: command [...] sophisticated repeats
> [...] transposition [...]
Those are all fine examples of where Chris hasn't defined anything
yet in the draft revision to the standard (I assume either because
he hasn't seen a proposal that he likes, or he's waiting more a
stronger concensus, or simply hasn't had the time). The developers
aren't likely to make huge changes to their code until the standard
is finalized (unless they are highly enamored of some particular
implementation).
> [...] The abc2ps system seems to consist of umpteen
> different versions, each of which may contain a good idea but none of which
> contain all of them. The sourceforge project that was meant to sort that out
> seems to have been met with massive indifference. Things DON'T get done.
Well the abc2ps thing happened because Michael Methfessel didn't
seem to have the time to support the reqeusts he was getting
for new features. Since the source code is available, it's been
easier for programmers to hack out their own modifications than
to wait for MM to do it. I, for example, wrote the bagpipe variant
(which modifies the typesetting style when K:HP is specified - so
where does that fit into the mode/key syntax discussion?). The
sourceforge project won't get anywhere until the draft revision
of the ABC spec is finalized.
Let's not despair. Let's encourage Chris to continue making progress
with the draft. It would be useful to propose specific changes to the
draft so that Chris doesn't have to work out all the details of the wording.
Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~mrozek
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
