James Allwright wrote: >On Mon 21 Jan 2002 at 04:49PM +0100, Funzionario E.D. wrote: >> % >> C3C/D/E2| [L:1/4] C>C/D//E| >> > >I would regard C>C/ as an illegal construct since > only makes sense >when both sides have the same length. Maybe this is the problem ?
I'm inclined to agree. It's not explicitly illegal in the abc standard, but it's a bit ambiguous as to what it actually means. BarFly translates C>C/ as C3/C/4, but that is a different length from CC. You could also argue that it should mean C5/4C/4, which would keep the total length the same. We discussed this matter at length some time ago, and the general consensus was that the use of < or > between notes of different lengths should be avoided. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
