On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Phil Taylor wrote:
> >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.
I see the point. Should I conclude that if I want to obtain a dotted quarter
followed by two semi-quavers, with L:1/4 I'll have to resort to an inline
[L:1/8]?
I have doubts though. In fact, the 1.6 standards states:
To support this abc notation uses a > to mean `the previous note is dotted,
the next note halved.`
following this rule, C>C/ with L:1/4 would mean a dotted quarter followed by
a semi-quaver... exactly what I need, even though it isn't a real broken
rhythm. I find this notation much more handy than an inline [L:1/8].
If the general consensus is that one should avoid writing this, I'll follow
the rule. I just want to make sure I write portable, standard ABC.
Thanks,
Guido =8-)
--
Guido Gonzato, Ph.D. <gonzato at sci . univr . it> - Linux system manager
Universita' di Verona (Italy), Facolta' di Scienze MM. FF. NN.
Ca' Vignal II, Strada Le Grazie 15, 37134 Verona (Italy)
Tel. +39 045 802 7990; Fax +39 045 802 7928 --- Timeas hominem unius libri
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
