Laura writes: | >>>>> "John" == John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | John> ABC's niche that led to its success is that it's a | John> relatively simple, basic, plain-text notation that is | John> compact and mailable. It doesn't require a sophisticated | John> UI; it can be typed (and read) by mere humans. | | I fail to see that ABC would be less compact or mailable if we were to | define the meaning in terms of pitch of "^f-|f".
Heh, heh. Should I feed the troll? ;-) That really wasn't what spurred by the "^f-|f" top9ic; it was in response to the suggestion that we absolutely need abc to be precisely defined in all cases or else it's useless. It's easy to see why people might like precision and unambiguity, but that isn't likely with something as simple and compact as abc. And the claim that we even need these things is disproved by the huge success of "standard" (;-) staff notation. (Also, from my background as a math student I might also observe that Kurt Goedel proved that we can't even reach total precision without ambiguity. But that's another topic altogether.) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
