On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
As I announced on the list, the ABC 2.0 standard now has support for such namespacing as was suggested by David. (the support is for %%-directives and clef line specifiers) You can always read the latest version of the standard here: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Phil Taylor wrote: > >I think the easiest solution would be to allow > >pseudo comments _only_ on a line by themselves. > Me too. Not only does this make parsing easier, it > also draws attention to the pseudocomment, which > otherwise gets lost in the abc. > As Bryan says, a backslash followed by a comment at > the end of a line is not ruled out by abc 1.6, and I > think it important that we keep the new standard a > superset of the 1.6 standard. Glad that there is consensus. I will adopt the rules suggested by Bryan in the standard, with the understanding that pseudo comments may only appear on a line by themselves. Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* Chazzanut Online: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
