Jack Campin writes: | >Bryan wrote: | >| K:^f^c=g tonic=A mode=mixolydian | >| which seems much clearer to me. | > | >I replied: | > If we were designing abc from scratch, I'd agree. ... | | ... If Bryan's verbose alternative were available I'd use it every time.
I keep thinking that this would actually fit in quite well with the keysig syntax that I implemented: K:<tonic><mode><accidentals> where all the fields are optional, with the obvious defaults. If Bryan's tonic= and mode= terms were added, this would allow one to write the original, compact abc key signatures, or to omit any of the three <...> terms and use the tonic= and mode= terms, as you prefer. Parsing this is easy, and would allow people to use the compact or wordy forms as they like. I also notice that there is actually little problem with omitting the "tonic=" and "mode=" bits. This is equivalent to the compact notation, if one allows the three parts to be in any order. Why is it that I feel this powerful urge to take 10 minutes to implement this? Someone please stop me! ... Maybe we need an AIA - Abc Implementers Anonymous - to do interventions in cases like this. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
