John Chambers wrote: >Yeah; jcabc2ps implements the simple-minded "continued on next >line" scheme from the new proposed standard. Here's how it would >work: > >X:1 >T:TEST:Shenei Zeitim >M:4/4 >K:C >G|G2G2A4|(FEF) D (A2G) G|\ >[M:4/4] [K:C] c2c2(B2c2)|(f2e2)e2d G| >w:She-nei zei-tim nich-__ra-tim_ \ > be-gan na-'ul_ yats-_hi-ru. Le- >G|G2G2A4|(FEF) D (A2G) G|\ >[M:4/4]\ >[K:C ]\ >c2c2(B2c2)|(f2e2)e2d G| >w:She-nei zei-tim nich-__ra-tim_ be-\ > gan na-'ul_ yats-_hi-ru. Le-
Yes, that works in BarFly too. >One problem with this scheme, of course, is that \ at the end of a >comment appends the next line to the comment. This is easy to >understand, but it does mean that it's difficult to have embedded >comments as was done above. This is one of the reasons why a lot of >languages have "bracketing" comment delimiters, often in addition to >the "to end of line" comments like abc's % comments. I've several times felt the need for comments which could be embedded in a line. Perhaps the !..! (or whatever symbol is currently favourite) could be used - !%This is a comment! >Also, note the missing w: on the continuation lines. If you include >the initial w:, it will be taken as the start of a new syllable. Same in BarFly. >| In conclusion: if you don't like the \ mechanism, fine: I can't have you >| change your mind. But the example you provided was wrong. > >I wouldn't be so hard on Irwin. When I see this sort of confusion >about how a mechanism is supposed to work, I find it more useful to >observe that the mechanism is too complex. It's common for people to >design something far too complex for its users, and then say "user >error" when they misuse it. This is the common excuse for lots of >disasters that were actually caused by an unusable design. Rather >than feeling smug about how stupid the users are, I'd much rather >design something that's simple enough that they will use it right. (Don't lose heart Irwin, you're doing a great job of withstanding the flak so far:-) >This isn't so much a matter of "right" and "wrong"; it's more a >matter of where you want to place the blame when it doesn't work >right, and how you want to fix the problem. > >(BTW, it would be better to have an example where the meter and key >really do change. I can't tell from the output whether jcabc2ps is >correctly handling the "key changes", since failure produces the same >output as success in this example.) Yes. BarFly puts the redundant meter and key signatures in, but of course K:C is invisible anyway. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
