From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice & linecontinuation
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote: > > > Yes, I'm inclined to agree. The only exception > > should be where there is some limitation on line > > length (e.g. the tune is going to be emailed), then > > continuation should only be used to continue on the > > following line. > > I would prefer it STRONGLY that the end-of-line > backspace would always mean: continue on the next > physical line of music. YES > However it seems that there is legacy code around > that expects these lines: > > << % variant A > G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ > M:4/4 > K:C > c2c2(B2c2) | > > to be interpreted as equivalent to: > > << % variant B > G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G| [M:4/4] [K:C] c2c2(B2c2) | > > So I would like to know from you all, if any of you > would have serious problems if from now on, backward > compatibility with variant A would be discontinued in > favour of a simpler continuation mechanism. Hmmm... Let's please forget about the headaching variant A > > > % variant 2 > > >[V1]:abc|abc|abc|abc| > > >[V2]:Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| > > >[V1]:def|def|def:| > > >[V2]:Def|Def|Def:| > > > I'd prefer them in the order 2,3,1. > > I also prefer variant 2. Anyone who strongly disagrees? > > I must note, however, that it should be [V:1] and not > [V1]: ! Ooops (of course) > Groeten, Insgelijks ;-) > Irwin Oppenheim Atent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
