Aaron Newman wrote -
>The modes-as-key-signatures are part of the 1.6 standard, maybe what you're
>saying is that this originally popped up as part of a tool and was
incorporated into
>the standard out of necessity.
That was certainly my understanding. The prevailing culture amongst abc
developers seems to be that innovation leads and the standard must follow.
My standpoint is that people should sound out other opinions and at least try
to arrive at some sort of concensus before releasing anything new to avoid
conflicts and anomalies. This idea is not well received.
>Anyhoo, I don't think anybody is arguing that modes are not important, but
they're
>not the same as key signatures. I guess there's no reason that you couldn't
handle
>both styles of the K: field, its just a few more permutations to test, but
it would have
>been better to keep the two seperate.
Just what I've been saying for some time but my suggestion that we introduce
an explicit key signature form of K: was met with considerable opposition.
Curiously, when John Chambers went ahead and did it, nobody complained at
all.
Bryan Creer
PS ("apparently the penalty ... is being pummeled with insults" - You'll get
used to it.)
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
