>There are some problems involved in the current definition. How >do you for instance handle combinations of |: :| repeats and P: >specifications such as the following:
>T:P test >M:6/8 >P:AABB >K:G >P:A >GAB GAB | FGA FGA | >P:B >dBG dBG :| AFD FAc || > >Should this be played as follows? >GAB GAB | FGA FGA | GAB GAB | FGA FGA | >dBG dBG | dBG dBG | AFD FAc || >dBG dBG | dBG dBG | AFD FAc || I think so. I understand the P: field to act like that : "play it like it is written until you meet a new play field", so each part is a sort of independant entity and the P: field in the header is the "master track". John, your repeat with colons is a clever idea. |:: ... ::| , |::: ... |1,3 ... :|2,4 ... :| etc. Ans so is the one with the ending bracket |: ... | ... |[1 ... ]:|[2 ... | ... ]| This should be added in the abc standard. I'm only an user (I only write tunes, not software) here, but I've heard that there would be a sort of vote from all the abcusers in order to decide what is (maybe) the best to add in the standard. After that, programmers can decide if they want to implement this in their program. >> The following works perfectly well with ABC2Win: >> CEC DED |1-3 EGE FAF :|2,4 EFG FED :|"last time" EFG ABc| >I can't see many humans being able to sightread that piece of notation >anyway. As I understand it, it expands out into > > CEC DED | EGE FAF | > CEC DED | EGE FAF | EFG FED | > CEC DED | EGE FAF | > CEC DED | EFG FED | > CEC DED | EFG ABc | Shouldn't it be understood : CEC DED | EGE FAF | CEC DED | EFG FED | CEC DED | EGE FAF | CEC DED | EFG FED | CEC DED | EFG ABc | instead ? ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
