on 7/6/03 3:03 PM, Jeff Bigler wrote: >> If there exists an explicit linebreak command, there is >> no reason why a bare newline should continue to imply >> a linebreak. > > I can think of two reasons. > > a) There's a lot of ABC already in existence that depends on that > assumption. > > b) It's nice to have the two levels of linebreak, one that can be > overridden and one that can't.
Jeff said it better than I did. There is nothing to prevent me from transcribing a tune so I can read it directly from the abc itself. Irwin's proposal doesn't preclude that since the !break! would only be used if the abc program wasn't handling a particular linebreak correctly. However, why complicate something that already works just fine? And as Jeff says, it would be nice to have the two levels of linebreak. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
