[I've changed the subject line to try to create a new thread.] Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | At 01:34 PM 12-13-2001 +0000, James Allwright you wrote: | >The problem is how you notate the end of a segment - this is not imediately | >obvious to me. | | By convention ;-) | | The easiest convention would be to require all internal parts to have the | same length, ...
Actually, I recall that this was mentioned in passing some time back, but went nowhere. It's actually possible to make a nearly-trivial extension to abc, in the same style, that solves this problem. What we could say is something like: 1. The scope of an ending is up to the next double bar or repeat symbol, whichever comes first, unless ... 2. The ending starts with [ and there is a matching ] before a subsequent bar line. This would mean that we could indicate different-length endings by using ]|, but if this construct doesn't appear, then the first || or |] or :| or |: encountered would terminate the ending. For example: |: ABC | DEF |[1 Gab :|[2 cde | def ]| gab | ... In this example, the first ending is "Gab" and the second ending is "cde | gab". In this simple example, it's not all that important, of course, but it illustrates the principle. It would be clear to a reader (human or software) that "| gab |" is the start of the next phrase. A more motivating example, of a sort that I see a lot of in Scandinavian music, might be: |4: CDE | FGA |[1,3 Bc2 :[2,4 Bcc- | c3 ]:| In this case, the 2,4 endings are "held" an extra bar. (Anyone who has ever learned an Orsapolska knows this sort of ending.) The use of the final ] would emphasize that the second ending has the extra bar. This would eliminate the current silliness of software drawing only the "Bcc-" bar as the second ending. The idea might be simply explained by saying that the full ending notation uses [...] to bracket an ending. However, just as the [ may be left out after a bar line, the ] may also be left out before a bar line if it's the end of a phrase marked by any sort of double bar or repeat mark. Readers could also be advised that, rather than leave these brackets out, they are encouraged to include them, so that the software will have no excuse to get it wrong. As far as I can tell, this doesn't conflict with current ABC syntax. It would fix the somewhat unaesthetic use of unbalanced brackets, though it keeps compatibility by allowing either bracket to be left out if it's adjacent to an appropriate bar line. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
