On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, John Chambers wrote: > Atte wrote: > | On 30 Jan 2002, Laura Conrad wrote: > | > I agree that in ABC, where the assumption is that what the user enters > | > is what a printing program should print, it's a bug. This is a case > | > which does demand some special code. > | > > | > Alternatively, the standard could address the problem in such a way > | > as to cause the bug to be in abc2ps and friends for printing the > | > second sharp in the version with both F's sharped. > | > | Or both! What I love about abc is that you type the same as you would > | write on a piece of music paper. Why not have both <snip> > > Well, I'd object to this, on the grounds that a music formatter > should show exactly what I tell it, and not try to outsmart me.
You are exactly right, I stand corrected. Of course the abcx2ps should give us exactly what we write, and the problem lies entirely with the player software, that should handle both my examples the same (correct way). <snip> > I've long treated this as rather poor notation, and I prefer to write > the accidentals. That's a personal choice, but you still agree that the abc2midi is wrong on this one, right? <snip> > It might also be useful to have an option for this, just as there > should be an option in players to override the "rest of measure" rule > and apply accidentals to only the one note. Well, doesn't that come under the "music formatter outsmarting" you mentioned before. I'm not sure if I like it. But for players I totally agree that an option for controlling the behavior of the program would be handy. -- Atte To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
