But it's silly. It adds nothing. Yes, it's only a few lines of code, but it's adding code to achieve nothing new. Or else, please tell me how the semantics of 1+3 and 1&3 differ from each other and from 1,3.
I wholeheartedly agree with John "we put this off until we can get agreement that trivial cases like [3 and [1-3 and [2,4 are legal." You want me to start implementing 1,3 or you want me to argue about syntax and what the complicated ones mean? Laurie ----- Original Message ----- From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] Progress towards a new abc standard is [1,3 Simon Wascher writes: | I would like to add: | [1+3 | and | [1&3 This is easy; it adds a couple of chars to the list of acceptable chars in the ending string. As long as these chars can't start another ABC term, there's no ambiguity. My current implementation has "-,.0123456789" as the legal chars; making it "-,.+&0123456789" is a one-line change. (In an earlier discussion, someone also suggested including "x", but I don't recall what that meant.) | and | a way of saying for example | | [last time Yeah; this is useful. But a problem in the past has been that the discussion of how to do this bogs down as people try to solve all possible repeat problems. After a while, people get bored trying to follow the abstrusities, the topic dies, and nothing happens. I'd suggest that we first make sure that [1,3 and similar endings are explicitly legal, so that they'll get implemented and people can use them. The general case should be a separate discussion. If we delve into it again, we'll never get anything but first and second endings. | `["last time"' is non-ambiguous since [" is not legal under any other | circumstances. ... | `|(spaces, backslashes, linebreakes, tabs)[<numeral><"text">' | | where <numeral> also could be any of the extentions proposed earlier. There is a serious ambiguity here. Consider something like: [1"Foo"ABC Under the current semi-standard, "Foo" is a chord symbol. Under your syntax, it is also an ending notation. It can't be both. Note also that, strictly speaking, the | isn't part of ABC's ending syntax. Endings need not start at bar lines. They usually do, true, but not always. The |1 notation is a shorthand for |[1 based on the fact that there's no ambiguity since a bracket can't otherwise be followed by a digit. But in the current syntax, [ followed by a digit is what tells a parser that it's an ending. Several possible extended syntaxes have been suggested in the past. But since this has led to endless discussions that have led nowhere, I'd still suggest we put this off until we can get agreement that trivial cases like [3 and [1-3 and [2,4 are legal. (Then we can wander off into discussing the introduction of for-loop notation into ABC as a general solution to looping problems. ;-) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
