John Chambers wrote: >Eric Galluzzo writes: >| >| > >So: how about that we agree that "U:T = trill" type notation is >| > >acceptable, and put into the standard? We could simply state that it is >| > >a symbol binding, or redefinition, or whatever we want to call it. It >| > >would apply to player programs as well as tadpole-generating programs. >| > >The BarFly definition of U:, so I gather, is somewhat broader; but this >| > >is at least a least common denominator that covers most common uses of >| > >U:. I think that this notation should satisfy Phil, Jack, etc., since >| > >it is compatible with BarFly; and it should satisfy John, Irwin, etc., >| > >since it is close "in spirit" to U:T = !trill!. >| > >| > I'm happy with that. > >A lot of us probably aren't. Do we really want to ban the >use of the U: construct for any other uses except replacing >a single wordy annotation with a single letter?
You've still got this back to front. The U: definition does not replace a wordy annotation with a single letter - it tells the program what that single letter means. That is not a macro, nothing is being replaced in the text. >This seems to me the crux of the issue. If U: defines a >text substitution (and thus requires the ! chars if they >are part of the text), then there are a zillion other uses >for such abbreviations. If the bangs are assumed, then U: >can only be used to define a 1-char name for an annotation, >and we'll end up having another 5-year debate about how to >do all those other useful things. Yes, but all the other stuff can be done with macros. Don't ruin the U: field by confusing it with macros. We need both. >I know that, in C, if #define were restricted to generating >only a single C keyword, it would radically cripple its >usefulness. I doubt if any C programmer would seriously >consider such a restriction. Of course, it's easier to see >this if you've been using such definitions for years. ABC >hasn't had such "parameterless macros", so most users >aren't aware of how useful they might be. BarFly has had both static (parameterless) and transposing (single parameter) macros for years. I really do know how useful they are. >Saving two chars of typing in a definition doesn't seem to >be a good payoff for eliminating most of the uses of a new >feature. I don't care about saving two chars; I do care about the confusion created between macros and symbol assignments. >On the other hand, we might find it almost never used. I've >seen printed music that included a bunch of definitions of >symbols that were used for ornaments. It's easy enough to >do. But how much printed music ever does such things? The >capability exists in printed music. Even without examples, >you can probably figure out how to do it. But hardly anyone >ever uses it outside of music-history textbooks. Take a look at the (printed) Goldberg Variations. In the back of the book there's a key to the squiggles which Bach used to represent various ornaments. At least in the edition which I have, this is reproduced from inside the cover of one of his kid's music homework books and is in the man's own handwriting. No way could you figure out how to play that music as he intended without that key. Likewise no computer program could display or play it without a similar set of definitions. Now this is not an obscure historical piece of music - it is still immensely popular and regularly performed - any good record shop will probably have at least half a dozen different artist's versions of it available. We're not talking music history textbooks here. That's just one example; believe me the usefulness of this system is not confined to baroque music, it's every bit as useful for the traditional music which is the staple diet of abc. >The same thing could well happen with abc. Musicians would >learn the !...! notation, but if they ever ran across the >U: definition, they'd skip over it and never even remember >that it exists. Those few who read abc directly would learn >about it; the rest (who mostly treat ABC as a write-only >notation) would never see it or use it. It seems to me that the people who work directly with abc are the leaders here - they are the people who are doing the most interesting and creative work. Even if what you say is true, why deny them a vital tool? Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
