Laurie writes: | I would like to propose the following. ... ... | Q:1/4=120 -- as before | -- in fact ALL currently legal Q: lines are still legal and have exactly the | same meaning as before. ... | Q:120=Allegro -- the popular example. Same idea
One thing I didn't see in the examples is whether combining these would be legal, as in: Q:1/4=120=Allegro It seems that this should "obviously" be allowed. Then there's the question about the syntax that some programs accept now: Q:1/4=120 "Allegro' Would this mean the same thing? Or would it just cause the "Allegro" to be displayed but not define it as 120? This does seem reasonable, with the idea that "=" is used in definitions, but it should probably be stated. Myself, I don't think I'd make too much use of the partial forms. I keep finding that it's more useful to over-specify such things, since it doesn't take very many bytes. Thus, I always include M and L lines, even when I know the defaults are correct. There's a lot of abc software around whose authors had better ideas than following the standard (such as it is). And I can see a lengthy ABC file's tempos getting to the state that a reader would have to do careful backwards study to determine what was intended at some particular point. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
