Bryan Creer just thought he'd ask:
| John Chambers recently said -
| But it's possible that we could put it to a vote,
|
| How would this be administered? Who would get a vote? Just the BIG 6? Only
| developers? Anybody who wants to?
|
| But again, it's not topic of major importance. More
!?
Laurie
- Original Message -
From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Progress towards a new abc standard
Bryan Creer just thought he'd ask:
| John Chambers recently said -
| But it's possible that we could
John Chambers recently said -
But it's possible that we could put it to a vote,
How would this be administered? Who would get a vote? Just the BIG 6? Only developers? Anybody who wants to?
But again, it's not topic of major importance. More important is that
we get some action making this
Hello,
I think the main topic here is about abc format philosophy.
Laurie Griffiths:
Why have these alternatives? They add nothing
to the expressiveness of the language.
To me a syntax should allow to write everything that does not harm its
integrity.
It is not the target to tell how a
Hello,
John Chambers:
Simon Wascher writes:
| I would like to add:
| [1+3
| and
| [13
(...)
My current implementation has
-,.0123456789 as the legal chars; making it -,.+0123456789 is a
one-line change. (In an earlier discussion, someone also suggested
including x, but I don't
On Mon 10 Dec 2001 at 01:05PM +0100, Simon Wascher wrote:
Hello,
I think the main topic here is about abc format philosophy.
Laurie Griffiths:
Why have these alternatives? They add nothing
to the expressiveness of the language.
To me a syntax should allow to write everything that
Simon Wascher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any expression a person wants to use should be legal as long as it does
not collide with the integrity of the syntax.
Not asking all the time why should we allow this ? but Why not?
No. Extraneous ways of writing down the same thing means that programs
The obvious problem for a player is that people can easily type all
sorts of of malformed endings. For example:
|: ... |1,3 ... :|4 ... :|
There's no 2nd ending here. I'd probably say that there are at least
two possible behaviors here: You could play it three times, skipping
the
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Progress towards a new abc standard is [1,3
| 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 13 differ
Hello,
John Chambers:
Well, the [1+3 and [13 cases are silly,
Well, to me it is what I write in tadpoles notation, maybe this is an
austrian speciality but I understand 1+3 as first *and* third ending
and 1+3 is a shortcut for this.
by the way, I thought we came to the conclusion not to
John Chambers:
| [last time
Yeah; this is useful. But a problem in the past has been that the
discussion of how to do this bogs down as people try to solve all
possible repeat problems. After a while, people get bored trying to
follow the abstrusities, the topic dies, and nothing
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Progress towards a new abc standard is [1,3
Hello,
John Chambers:
Well, the [1+3 and [13 cases are silly,
Well, to me it is what I write in tadpoles notation, maybe this is an
austrian speciality but I
-
From: Simon Wascher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Progress towards a new abc standard is [1,3
Hello,
John Chambers:
Well, the [1+3 and [13 cases are silly,
Well, to me it is what I write in tadpoles notation, maybe
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:26:57PM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
I would still personally prefer to have just one way to write it rather than
all of these variants. I care rather little which of the variants is chosen
but my preference is for ones towards the tops of the lists of
Simon Wascher writes:
| John Chambers:
| Well, the [1+3 and [13 cases are silly,
|
| Well, to me it is what I write in tadpoles notation, maybe this is an
| austrian speciality but I understand 1+3 as first *and* third ending
| and 1+3 is a shortcut for this.
|
| by the way, I thought we came to
Hello,
there is no reason to reject ::| and :::| notation as far as I see.
Additive complementary constructs (intriguing to me) could be:
:text|
and
:numeral|
the text construct would allow to specify freely any text that gives
information on the number of repeats.
examples:
:repeat this
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 like
- Original Message -
From: Simon Wascher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Progress towards a new abc standard is [1,3
Hello,
John Chambers wrote:
(...)
[First and second repeats]
After several online discussions, I
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
:numeral|
assume rest of proposal is included by reference
I second this proposal. I have a
Simon Wascher writes:
| I would like to add:
| [1+3
| and
| [13
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 the
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:
:numeral|
This looks
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
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 like [1,3 and [1-3 work with a very few abc tools.
It seems that
Jack writes:
| 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 like [1,3 and [1-3 work with a very few abc
| 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 like [1,3 and [1-3 work with a very few abc tools.
Something I've also implemented is the conventional |:: ... ::|
notation that says three times through.
Every now and then I see repeat signs with 4 dots in a line instead of
2, which are simply a different style of ordinary repeat. Do you have
a reference to back up your assertion that |::
Jack Campin writes:
| Something I've also implemented is the conventional |:: ... ::|
| notation that says three times through.
...
| 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
Jack Campin writes:
| Here is a real-life example (slightly reorganized from one in my modes
| tutorial):
|
| X:1
| T:Sister Jean
| S:Catriona Macdonald
| M:6/8
| L:1/8
| Q:3/8=80
| R:andante
| K:DDor
| D2E F2G|ABA G2F|E2C C2G|E3D2C|D2E F2G|ABA A2G| A2d d2c|d3 D3:|
| K:DMix
| A2B c2d|efe
James Allwright wrote a week or so ago:
| For those who have wondered what got discussed by the abc standards
| committee, here is a summary of our discussion. The section numbers
| referred to can be found at
|
| http://abc.sourceforge.net/standard-propose/
Y'know, I've been wondering whether
John Chambers wrote:
James Allwright wrote a week or so ago:
| For those who have wondered what got discussed by the abc standards
| committee, here is a summary of our discussion. The section numbers
| referred to can be found at
|
| http://abc.sourceforge.net/standard-propose/
For those who have wondered what got discussed by the abc standards
committee, here is a summary of our discussion. The section numbers
referred to can be found at
http://abc.sourceforge.net/standard-propose/
James Allwright
This is a summary of the new features proposed in the new abc
31 matches
Mail list logo
