Irwin Oppenheim wrote:
or perhaps better, do not allow a-g and A-G as body fields.
Alas, they are in the standard.
No, they are not. E: is in the standard, and I have *suggested* in my BNF
that they should be allowed in the tune too. This is because if you write
a tune set as one abc tune, or
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, henrik wrote:
But since the redefinable symbols H-Z are also
allowed in the tune, all in-tune fields cause the same problem, actually.
No special case for A-G.
It would be better to deprecate the \n_: style header
fields in the standard, and to advice to use only the
[_:]
From: henrik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The case of a tune line beginning E:| is a problem, of course, but
a minor
one. This could really only be caused by the line-break daemon
when
e-mailing tunes. And it is easily discovered when proof-reading or
proof-listening the tune. Most programs warn about
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, David Webber wrote:
Could this not be entirely legal with the E (corresponding with the
L: setting) occupying an entire bar?
And what about:
A B C D\
E:|
Irwin
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, henrik wrote:
Of course, the thought occurred to me too after I had sent the message.
Still, I think it should be parsed as an E: field, because the error is so
easily spotted by the user, and you only have to insert a space to correct
it, e.g.
E: |
or E :|
Anyway, the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
se, henrik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I wrote:
The case of a tune line beginning E:| is a problem
This could really only be caused by the line-break daemon
David Webber replied:
Could this not be entirely legal with the E (corresponding with the
L: setting)
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Er, what's an E: field? The draft 1.7.6 knows nothing of E.
Good point! It still appeared in V1.6, and apparently
it has rightfully been removed from V1.7.6.
Groeten,
Irwin Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~*
Chazzanut Online:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Er, what's an E: field? The draft 1.7.6 knows nothing of E.
Good point! It still appeared in V1.6, and apparently
it has rightfully been removed from V1.7.6.
So satisfy my curiosity.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Er, what's an E: field? The draft 1.7.6 knows nothing of E.
Good point! It still appeared in V1.6, and apparently
it has rightfully been removed from V1.7.6.
So satisfy my curiosity. What was it??
I probably wasn't born yet when this header was
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Er, what's an E: field? The draft 1.7.6 knows nothing of E.
It was used in abc2mtex in order to set the note-spacing for
musicTeX. When musicTeX was replaced by musiXTeX---a much improved
version which has a built-in note-spacing algorithm---it
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Walsh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Er, what's an E: field? The draft 1.7.6 knows nothing of E.
It was used in abc2mtex in order to set the note-spacing for
musicTeX. When musicTeX was replaced by musiXTeX---a much
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill wrote:
Er, what's an E: field? The draft 1.7.6 knows nothing of E.
The 1.6 standard says it's Elemskip. No, I don't know either.
I don't think it's meaningful anywhere except in abc2mtex.
Come to think of it,
12 matches
Mail list logo
