I think that I am now in favour of syntax that allows this: Any lines containing % are meta-comments meaning that they are just me talking to you about the example and would not be part of the example - though I guess they'd be legal as comments anyway
Q:1/4=120 Allegro % Outside any header. Defines Allegro. No display, just remember . Q:3/8=160 Running % Defines Running X:12 Q:Allegro %Display Allegro, play at 1/4=120 X:13 Q:3/8=100 % display either 3/8=100 or preferably <dotted-crotchet symbol>=100 Q:Allegro ma non troppo %Display that lot. Play at default rate since there is nothing recognisable for a player program to use Q:Alegro % Same again. Spelling errors are not tolerated! Q: Allegro % but the odd space is OK, play 1/4=120 Q: running % and so is change of case. Play 3/8=160 Q: 3/8=100 - % Special case. A single minus sign means "no display" Q:1/4=110Andante % Two points here. Firstly no SEPARATOR character is required. Secondly if this is between X: (or T: with a missing X: ???) and the next blank line then it does NOT define Andante for future use, it just prints it. Any command EITHER defines a symbol OR causes an action, not both. Outside a header/tune it defines, inside it causes action. In this case the action is to set the speed to 1/1=110 and print Andante. Q:60 Andante %SYNTAX ERROR!!!!! Only the preferred form of the tempo syntax may be used with the new extensions. Deprecated old versions must be complained about. Q: Allegro 1/4=120 % Display that lot, play at default rate. Numbers come first. That last one is probably the most objectionable but I don't see any easy line between that and Jack's "pull the tempo string out from wherever you find it". It's an implementor's can of worms and worse - if some programmer did hack up something that sort of works for some cases it would be a blasted nightmare. Formal syntax can be cooked up easily, but i'm not sure it will aid discussion at this stage. PRO: Allows definition and later use (this has its pros and cons but it seems to be part of abc, even though I personally don't like it) PRO: Not too hard to implement PRO: Allows printable version only, allows display version only, allows both. CON: More restrictive that Jack's idea In order to make progress - I feel that we need an "Approval voting" scheme. English spelling has never been reformed because although many people agree that the current version is stupid they can't agree on which of many alternatives to go with, even though almost any of them would be a great improvement. So if you reckon that a particular scheme is ACCEPTABLE, even though you might PREFER a different scheme, (whether slightly different or very different), please ... SAY WHEN YOU FEEL A SCHEME IS ACCEPTABLE whether or not it is ideal. We have to start collecting YES votes if we are going to go forward. Unconstrained discussion tends to look like NO votes. For instance if you feel that it would be better with £ as a delimiter (that was an English pound sign) then if you merely say that, then it looks like you are arguing and not agreeing. If you actually feel that any delimiter or no delimiter is acceptable, but you have a preference for £ then make sure you say that. At the risk of repeating myself: We have to start getting YES votes to go forwards. Laurie To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
