John Walsh writes: | > X:3 | > T:TTLS | > M:4/4 | > L:1/4 | > K:G | > G G d d |\ | > w:Twin-kle twin-kle | > e e d2 |\ | > w:lit-tle star | > ... | > and John Chambers replies: | > | > X:3 | > T:TTLS | > M:4/4 | > L:1/4 | > K:G | > G G d d | | > w:Twin-kle twin-kle \ | > e e d2 | | > w:lit-tle star \ | > ... | | Sure, whatever.
Actually, it has occurred to me that there might be a simple solution that would allow both of these. The real problem we're facing is: A lot of people really want the final backslash to mean "continue with the next line of the same type". But this discription is sufficiently ambiguous that we end up with different implementers having different understandings of what such a description means, and implementing it differently. This problem is fundamentally hopeless, because musical terminology and understanding is so varied. Unless we can come up with a truly unambiguous definition of "same type" lines, we don't stand a chance of making this work consistently. And given the wide differences here in how people understand musical terms, we just aren't going to do anything like that. So if we really want continued lines to skip lines like the above, we need a way of saying "continued" not in musical terms, but in purely lexical terms. Since we are dealing with whole lines, we could in fact use a solution like: X:3 T:TTLS M:4/4 L:1/4 K:G G G d d |\1 w:Twin-kle twin-kle e e d2 |\1 w:lit-tle star The number at the end is quite simply the number of lines to skip to find the continuation. If omitted, the nnumber is zero, meaning don't skip any lines, continue with the next line. Actually, there's an obvious error in the above. It should be: X:3 T:TTLS M:4/4 L:1/4 K:G G G d d |\1 w:Twin-kle twin-kle \1 e e d2 |\1 w:lit-tle star If you don't continue the first w: line, the result will be to put two lines of words under the first measure of music. But this is just a detail. This would give us a simple solution to the example that started this thread: % 1 - 4 [V: 1] |:z4 |z4 |f2ec |_ddcc | \4 [V: 2] |:c2BG|AAGc|(F/G/A/B/)c=A|B2AA | \4 [V: 3] |:z4 |f2ec|_ddcf |(B/c/_d/e/)ff| \4 % 5 - 9 [V: 1] cAB2 |cAAA |c3B|G2!fermata!Gz ::e4| \4 [V: 2] AAG2 |AFFF |A3F|=E2!fermata!Ez::c4| \4 [V: 3] (ag/f/e2)|A_ddd|A3B|c2!fermata!cz ::A4| \4 % 10 - 15 [V: 1] f_dec |B2c2|zAGF |=EFG2 |1F2z2:|2F8|] [V: 2] ABGA |G2AA|GF=EF |(GF3/2=E//D//E)|1F2z2:|2F8|] [V: 3] _dBc>d|e2AF|=EFc_d|c4 |1F2z2:|2F8|] This is exactly the example proposed, with the addition of \4 to the lines that are to be joined with later lines. We might note that the [V:...] lines in the continuations are redundant, but they help make the abc more readable, so they are a good idea. What do people think of this modest proposal? It would make this sort of disconnected continuation possible, and would enable readable abc like the above. The only problem is that implementers are likely to let out a big groan. But it's probably no worse than the current kinds of disconnected continuations that have been implemented; it's just less prone to misimplementation. In any case, disconnected continuations like this require that the software buffer all the intermingled lines until the entire set is complete. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
