Simon Wascher wrote:
>
> my *exemplary* proposal for a separator was not % but %%display or
> %display (the second can be ruled out by reason of keeping the standards
> syntax stringent).
OK, now have a look at this:
Example 1
Displayed tempo: Allegro 1/4=120
Playback tempo: 1/4=120
Q:Allegro 1/4=120
or:
Q:1/4=120 %%display Allegro 1/4=120
-------
Example 2
Displayed tempo: Allegro
Playback tempo: 1/4=120
Q:Allegro [1/4=120]
or:
Q:1/4=120 %%display Allegro
--------
Example 3
Displayed tempo: Allegro
Playback tempo: determined by an external definition of "Allegro"
Q:Allegro
or:
Q:Allegro %%display Allegro
-------
Now, tell me exactly ow much more difficult it would be for a playback
program to interpret the first alternative (the one without the
"%%display").
Remember that the first alternative has a few minor advantages:
*It's more human-readable.
*It's easier to understand for a non-programmer.
*It'll require a shorter text string - sometimes far shorter.
*It retains the connection between displayed and played tempo.
*It is completely backwards compatible on file level, that is
files that are written according to the old abc standard are
played and displayed exactly the same way they as they were.
I know I sometimes expect too much from the programmers. Like so many
non-programmers I tend to view them as some kind of magicians always
ready to pull a handful of miracles out of their sleeve.
If you tell me you can't do it this time, I guess I just have to accept
that. But at least give it a serious try!
Please! :-)
Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
