That would be acceptable. Actually I proposed that instead of having to write it twice it would be done the other way. If the text of the displayed tempo is a single minus sign then it has the special meaning "display nothing" Q:1/4=80 %display "1/4=80" and use it for the player program too Q:1/4=80 - %change the tempo on playback but display nothing here. Q:1/4=80 dreary % display "dreary", use 1/4=80 for playback.
I would also be quite happy with a SEPARATOR (I prefer the word delimiter) e.g. Q:1/4=80 %display that and use it for the player program too Q:1/4=80: %change the tempo on playback but display nothing here. Q:1/4=80: dreary % display "dreary", use 1/4=80 for playback. and I'd be happy with pretty much any character as delimiter EXCEPT / (because it occurs in the tempo string and could cause confusion) = (same reason) [space] because it is likely to be found in the tempo string % (because it already has a legal meaning as start-of-comment) Jack, Frank (and other users) even if this isn't ideal, is it acceptable? Other programmers - is this as easy to implement as it seems to me? Laurie ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Wascher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] something really simple Hello Laurie, I think maybe now we got it: The golden rule could be: If there is a n/n=n string right after the colon this will not be printed if it is followed by any other character. everething else is printed entirely. this restricts "playback only" fields to n/n=n what is acceptable, and implicates that in one certain case a part of the time string has to be writen twice: Q:n/n=n n/n=n (+ text ad libidum) %(important: the space after Q:n/n=n), displaying: n/n=n (+ text ad libidum) Simon :-) Laurie Griffiths wrote: > > I think that I am now in favour of syntax that allows this: > Any lines containing % are meta-comments meaning that they are just me > talking to you about the example and would not be part of the example - > though I guess they'd be legal as comments anyway > > Q:1/4=120 Allegro % Outside any header. Defines Allegro. No display, just > remember . > Q:3/8=160 Running % Defines Running > > X:12 > Q:Allegro %Display Allegro, play at 1/4=120 > > X:13 > Q:3/8=100 % display either 3/8=100 or preferably <dotted-crotchet > symbol>=100 > > Q:Allegro ma non troppo %Display that lot. Play at default rate since there > is nothing recognisable for a player program to use > > Q:Alegro % Same again. Spelling errors are not tolerated! > > Q: Allegro % but the odd space is OK, play 1/4=120 > > Q: running % and so is change of case. Play 3/8=160 > > Q: 3/8=100 - % Special case. A single minus sign means "no display" > > Q:1/4=110Andante % Two points here. Firstly no SEPARATOR character is > required. Secondly if this is between X: (or T: with a missing X: ???) and > the next blank line then it does NOT define Andante for future use, it just > prints it. Any command EITHER defines a symbol OR causes an action, not > both. Outside a header/tune it defines, inside it causes action. In this > case the action is to set the speed to 1/1=110 and print Andante. > > Q:60 Andante %SYNTAX ERROR!!!!! Only the preferred form of the tempo syntax > may be used with the new extensions. Deprecated old versions must be > complained about. > > Q: Allegro 1/4=120 % Display that lot, play at default rate. Numbers come > first. > > That last one is probably the most objectionable but I don't see any easy > line between that and Jack's "pull the tempo string out from wherever you > find it". It's an implementor's can of worms and worse - if some programmer > did hack up something that sort of works for some cases it would be a > blasted nightmare. > > Formal syntax can be cooked up easily, but i'm not sure it will aid > discussion at this stage. > PRO: Allows definition and later use (this has its pros and cons but it > seems to be part of abc, even though I personally don't like it) > PRO: Not too hard to implement > PRO: Allows printable version only, allows display version only, allows > both. > CON: More restrictive that Jack's idea > > In order to make progress - I feel that we need an "Approval voting" scheme. > English spelling has never been reformed because although many people agree > that the current version is stupid they can't agree on which of many > alternatives to go with, even though almost any of them would be a great > improvement. So if you reckon that a particular scheme is ACCEPTABLE, even > though you might PREFER a different scheme, (whether slightly different or > very different), please ... > > SAY WHEN YOU FEEL A SCHEME IS ACCEPTABLE whether or not it is ideal. We > have to start collecting YES votes if we are going to go forward. > Unconstrained discussion tends to look like NO votes. > > For instance if you feel that it would be better with � as a delimiter (that > was an English pound sign) then if you merely say that, then it looks like > you are arguing and not agreeing. If you actually feel that any delimiter > or no delimiter is acceptable, but you have a preference for � then make > sure you say that. At the risk of repeating myself: We have to start > getting YES votes to go forwards. > > Laurie > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
