Wil Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, because application A might handle %%MIDI and ignore %%pagesize
> The way I planned to handle pseudocomments was to look for
> particular strings like %%MIDI and ignore anything else that
> starts with % - so I wouldn't even know it was a pseudocomment
> unless it was a specific thing I parse.
> Again, that's why you'd use pseudocomments, so that it
> transparently extends the language.
The problem with the pseudocomments as they stand is that they aren't namespaced.
Without namespacing you run the risk of two applications using the same pseudocomment
but implementing it in different ways.
"David Webber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But as discussed earlier to avoid clashes of the same text used
> differently by different abc users/developers we need something
> broadly of the form
> +namespace:whatever+
> and
> %%namespace:whatever
> where "namespace" could be mozart (for me) barfly (for Phil) etc etc
> etc and would make it less likely that clashes between different
> usages of the same text ("whatever") would occur. Colon-free
> entries (in this proposal) would be the standard abc namespace for
> which a very specific set of allowed "whatever"s would be (are)
> defined in the spec.
I think this is a great idea. The idea has come up on this list before and not got
anywhere, but we now seem to have a realistic chance of getting a new standard. I
think a namespacing mechanism to allow for genuinely transparent extensions would be a
valuable addition to the new standard.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------
-- Bob Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
