Remo D. wrote:
Hudson Lacerda wrote:
It seems that you coded a line continuation similar to those of bash or C
That's what I did. Continuation gets reported (a T_CONTINUE event) and the scanner stays in the same state.
That's difficult! Neither the 1.6 nor the 2.0 draft mentioned it! :([V:1] abcde \ [V:2] ABCDE \ [V:1] cdedc [V:2] CDEDC
is equivalent to:
[V:1] abcde cdedc [V:2] ABCDE CDEDC
but not to:
[V:1] abcde [V:2] ABCDE [V:1] etc.
Do you mean that continuations should be treated as "continuation within a voice"? I hope not, it really would be difficult to handle.
I hope many others will provide their comments about this issue so to reach a consesus on this topic.
After send my message, I had a look at the standards and really there are no thing like that my sample! :(( Currently, I know it works as I described, with abcm2ps.
I do not want cause any controversies or difficulties concerning the language or it implementations -- especially because ABC already has too many different `flavors' mutually incompatibles. I mentioned that case because I find very useful to control the formatation of the score after write the notes using `\' and `!'.
I'd like someone could suggest another way to control the measures to be printed in a same line without need to translate excerpts of code. (That could be simple with 1voice, but is not good for polyphonic music.)
Maybe another special character could be used for that purpose (continuation of music system in printed scores).
(Suggestion for the new standard?)
Best regards.
Hudson
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
