Graham Percival wrote Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:53 PM
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:31:14PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:13 AM
Eh?!?! You want to tell people to put articulation and dynamic
marks after the duration, before they've been
Graham Percival wrote Friday, April 24, 2009 4:42 PM
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax
is
pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple
you need to put the '
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 09:41:26AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Friday, April 24, 2009 4:42 PM
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is
pitch duration other,
trevor, graham,
On 25 Apr 2009, at 10:41, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Friday, April 24, 2009 4:42 PM
Hmm. I was initially thinking of 3.1.2, but that subsection
(actually, the entire section) is really talking about
*macroscopic* style. I mean, it refers back to the
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:31:14PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:13 AM
Eh?!?! You want to tell people to put articulation and dynamic
marks after the duration, before they've been told how to do
articulations and dynamics? Remember that the
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is
pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple
you need to put the ' before the duration, then I'd probably
reject it as being
Graham == Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
Graham On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is
pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple
you need to
On 4/24/09 4:22 PM, Peter Chubb lily.u...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote:
I'd really appreciate an appendix or something that gives Lily syntax
as BNF, or as a syntax diagram. The syntax is very complex, and I've
been caught out a number of times by things not being as I expected
them to be
