Re: [abcusers] [ABCp] Parts
I still think my suggestion is more general, as it allows the internal part name (one letter) to be totally independent of the displayed text (Part description). Remo's proposal would only allow one word (part name) to start with each letter. Therefore if there was a part Coda, there could not be any other part whose name started with C. (Using letters within a word would get confusing) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Em 25 Oct 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than one letter. Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name matched part of another name. Remo's proposal avoids the ambiguity by distinguishing the letter case. Is that not sufficient? Remo said (Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:25:13 -0700): "Each part name MUST begin with a upper case letter and may continue ONLY with lowercase letters and numbers" P:AB-> "play part A then B" P:OvertureCoda -> "play part Overture then part Coda" P:OVERTURE CODA -> "play part O then V, then E, ..." P:intro -> ERROR Also, for printing, Neil Jennings proposal - a letter for parts identification plus an optional string for parts names - should lead to a need of to obtain the parts names in the tune body (i.e. after read the header P:), for then write (print) the parts sequency at the begining of the piece. % header P:ABABC % ... % body % ... P:B ;Riff P:C ;Coda Regards. Hudson _ Quer mais velocidade? Só com o acesso Aditivado iG, a velocidade que você quer na hora que você precisa. Clique aqui: http://www.acessoaditivado.ig.com.br
Re: [abcusers] [ABCp] Parts
Em 25 Oct 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: >My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than one >letter. >Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name >matched part of another name. > Remo's proposal avoids the ambiguity by distinguishing the letter case. Is that not sufficient? Remo said (Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:25:13 -0700): > "Each part name MUST begin with a upper case letter and may continue > ONLY with lowercase letters and numbers" > > P:AB-> "play part A then B" > P:OvertureCoda -> "play part Overture then part Coda" > P:OVERTURE CODA -> "play part O then V, then E, ..." > P:intro -> ERROR Also, for printing, Neil Jennings proposal - a letter for parts identification plus an optional string for parts names - should lead to a need of to obtain the parts names in the tune body (i.e. after read the header P:), for then write (print) the parts sequency at the begining of the piece. % header P:ABABC % ... % body % ... P:B ;Riff P:C ;Coda Regards. Hudson _ Quer mais velocidade? Só com o acesso Aditivado iG, a velocidade que você quer na hora que você precisa. Clique aqui: http://www.acessoaditivado.ig.com.br
[abcusers] abc2xml
Does anyone know if abc2xml is a work in progress? I myself miss support for lyrics, and according to http://home.austin.rr.com/johner/abc2xml/abc2xml.htm#features there are a lot of other limitations. -- Kristian Nørgaard To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] [ABCp] Parts
Neil Jennings wrote (about Remo proposal): My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than one letter. Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name matched part of another name. Remo proposal (below) avoids ambiguity by distinguishing between upper/lower case letters: `> "Each part name MUST begin with a upper case letter and may continue ONLY with lowercase letters and numbers" `> `> P:AB-> "play part A then B" `> P:OvertureCoda -> "play part Overture then part Coda" `> P:OVERTURE CODA -> "play part O then V, then E, ..." `> P:intro -> ERROR `> `> Spaces and dots may separate part names. I can see the need for the part specification to have two 'parts', one the single letter identifier to be used in formulas, and the other the text which appears on the score. Perhaps we could propose a new syntax, e.g P:A ;Intro P:B ;Riff P:C ;Coda (where ; is used here to indicate a new separator character, not necessarily a semi-colon) The single letter is used in the formula, and the text following the separator is displayed on the score Hopefully, leaving a space would make it acceptable to existing programs? In that way, for print the parts sequence above the staff at the tune begining, it is need read the tune body to find the text to be printed, because in the header just the identifiers (the formula) can be found. However, that proposal seems be closer to the standard. Best regards. Hudson To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Is the list back again?
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 10:00:20AM -0700, Toby Rider wrote: > I'll communicate with the folks at mail-archive and let them know how to > get a feed from the list again, now that I've tightened up security and > squashed the spam problem (for now). Thanks for doing that, it was getting to be a nuisance. Much appreciated. -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] [ABCp] Parts
My program would reject (ignore) any part specification longer than one letter. Your proposal could lead to ambiguous part specifications, if one name matched part of another name. I can see the need for the part specification to have two 'parts', one the single letter identifier to be used in formulas, and the other the text which appears on the score. Perhaps we could propose a new syntax, e.g P:A ;Intro P:B ;Riff P:C ;Coda (where ; is used here to indicate a new separator character, not necessarily a semi-colon) The single letter is used in the formula, and the text following the separator is displayed on the score Hopefully, leaving a space would make it acceptable to existing programs? Neil Remo D. wrote: Neil Jennings wrote: Because the P: text appears above the staff, people have mis-used it to add comments which have nothing to do with parts. In the tune header, it can have a formula such as (AB)2(AC)3 In the body, it must be just a single letter HARMONY can play tunes according to the formula, including nested repeats. Neil Does this mean that my proposal is ok for you? If you have (like the standard says): % Header P:(AB)2C ... % Body P:A P:B It would work. But also it would work if you write: %Header P:(Intro Riff)2 Coda ... % Body P:Intro P:Riff ... As a general rule, my parser tries to accomodate as many synonyms as it can. A simple example is with decorations: !f! is equal to +f+ which is equal to +forte+. R.D 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
