In what lies below, Anselm wrote the bits with > at the start >... >The counter-proposal stands:
> Q:1/4=120 % [1] explicit tempo specification OK, No problem, backward compatibility etc. > Q:1/4=120 note="Pretty quickly" % [2] explicit tempo with advisory note OK acceptable but not my preference. "note" is a keyword that I scan for (no problem). The use of quotes immediately brings up the question of "what if the string is to contain a quote?" An escape mechanism is needed such as using \" to represent a quote (and therefore \\ to represent \ too). That has been argued before and not everyone liked it. It's at best a necessary evil, if it can be avoided altogether then it should be. > Q:Allegro % [3] symbolic tempo specification, metronome > % speed (or range) defined elsewhere Maybe OK, maybe not. What's the syntax for the "Allegro" thing? Is it a string which must have been defined before with no changes at all? Is it to be recognised if the case of some letters are changed? Are spaces allowed. Is it regarded as different if spaces are changed? Is it allowed to contain absolutely any character except linend and %? Are numbers allowed? How about /? How about "? How about =? > Q:Allegro note="Pretty quickly" % [4] symbolic tempo with advisory note Maybe OK. This goes beyond the other proposal. It is more complicated than the other proposal? Is it needed? It's a little more bother to implement but is not hard. Is it too complicated?? What is the syntax of the "Allegro" part. Can it be more than one word? e.g. Q:Allegro moderato note="Fairly quickly" Can it contain keywords such as "note"? e.g. Q:Allegro but see note from composer note="Pretty quickly" > Q:Allegro 1/4=120 % [5] definition of symbolic tempo Maybe OK. Again - what is the syntax of the "Allegro" part? Now it looks as though it must not contain any numbers. Is it allowed to contain multiple words? Is it restricted to a single word with no spaces? (I might want "Allegro moderato" or "step hop" > Q:Allegro 1/4=120-128 % [6] definition of range Not OK. For a player program this is just silly. It can only play at one speed at a time. I can't see any point in choosing a random number in the range given and I can't see in the near future a program that will have such intelligence that it can interpret the music by finding the best number in the range. Better to just say 124. >... > Q:1/4=120 mode="accelerando" This is a new departure that goes beyond anything discussed so far. I presume that the idea is that the program should increase tempo smoothly between this point and the next tempo given in the next Q: It raises a lot of problems if there are repeats (or P: da capo or any other non-sequential play indications around). I'd prefer to postpone this one until we've got the "really simple" thing sorted out. That's a NO vote in case I wasn't clear. The things I see different in this set of proposals are 1. The ability to have a speed set by a symbol defined earlier (such as Allegro) and displayed as something different again. Is this required? 2. It is less clear how to parse it because a definition with numbers in (e.g. 1/8=120) does not always occur as the first thing in the command, so we need rigid rules as to how to find it. 3. The syntax is less clear because I don't know whether the identifier like "Allegro" is required to be just a single word or what. 4. Introduction of "accelerando" which is for me a bridge too far when we are still arguing about something "really simple"!! Incidentally it still has the possibility of writing something like Q:Prestissimo 1/4=220 %defines Prestissimo Q:Largo 1/4=40 % defines Largo ... Q:Largo note="Prestissimo" which will play extremely slowly while displaying something meaning extremely fast. This is not a problem to me, but apparently was to Anselm who, in the words of Shakespeare is "hoist on his own petard" (means blown up by his own bomb). [Lest anyone think I am smirking - I might add "been there myself, done that myself"] Laurie To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
