Skink treats the construct ">" as meaning "add a dot to the first note and cut the second in half" which has the correct effect in the case where the first and second notes have the same length, but does not preserve total length.
wil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 1/21/2002 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] small nag in ABC notation? 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 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
