| 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.
Well, the [1+3 and [1&3 cases are silly, but they're trivial and easy
to implem
I feel these suggestions are making it complicated. I would like to follow
the engineering maxim of "Keep It Simple" (yes, I know there's normally
another S on the end and I know what it stands for but I don't want to
insult anyone).
- Original Message -
From: Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PRO
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 t
Jack Campin wrote:
>
> In music I've seen that uses this construct, it's represented by
> printing "(3x)" above the staff. A staff-notation generator could
> do whatever it liked with "|:: ... ::|", but I suspect that most
> non-Scandiwegian users would be happier with some such explicit
> rep
John Chambers wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, are there any musical traditions/styles that
> use a relative (or cumulative) approach?
Actually yes. That's how it was done untill way into the 17th Century.
>
> I'd imagine that this could make the music difficult to read at
> time
They are absolute. Thus, no matter what key you are in, "_e" means E flat.
- Eric
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Ronström [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> What the accidentals =, ^, _ mean? Are they "absolute" (e g "_e" means
> "e flat") or are they in relation to the key (e g "=e"
> there is no reason to reject ::| and :::| notation as far as I see.
You go on to suggest a more powerful formalism, so one reason would be
that we simply don't need it.
[Simon's message rearranged...]
> Additive complementary constructs (intriguing to me) could be:
> :|
This looks good, b
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 th
Simon Wascher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> there is no reason to reject ::| and :::| notation as far as I see.
>
> Additive complementary constructs (intriguing to me) could be:
>
> :<"text">|
>
> and
>
> :|
I second this proposal. I have a lot of pieces where :3| would be
extrem
If 1+3 means the same as 1,3 then I would NOT like to see it.
Multiple different ways to write the same thing just makes things more
complicated. I presume that 1-3 means the same as 1,2,3. I can live with
that as it could save a lot of typing;1-6 is much shorter than 1,2,3,4,5,6.
Laurie
-
"Laurie Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been off sailing. Let me try (below) to clear up the tempo thread for
> the last week.
> Do we have a concensus? Can we adopt this yet?
>
> Laurie
>
> Jack Campin:
> One extra thing you get in actual scores: multiple names for the same tempo
Hello,
John Chambers wrote:
> (...)
[First and second repeats]
> After several online discussions, I (and probably a few others) have
> implemented the rather trivial extension of allowing any string of
> digits, commas, hyphens and periods to label an ending. This means
> that endings l
I am interested in the ABC+ draft!
Where do I get it?
.
Laurie
- Original Message -
From: Guido Gonzato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: [abcusers] new ABC+ draft ready
Hello,
I have finished writing the new ABC+ draft. This
I've been off sailing. Let me try (below) to clear up the tempo thread for
the last week.
Do we have a concensus? Can we adopt this yet?
Laurie
Jack Campin:
One extra thing you get in actual scores: multiple names for the same tempo,
which in your notation might be
Q:allegro=>Tempo I
Laur
Hello,
there is no reason to reject ::| and :::| notation as far as I see.
Additive complementary constructs (intriguing to me) could be:
:<"text">|
and
:|
the <"text"> construct would allow to specify freely any text that gives
information on the number of repeats.
examples:
:"repeat thi
15 matches
Mail list logo
