It was an outrageous example on purpose. It's *definitely* not legal ABC 2.0, but the definition I was hearing implied that it would be legal ABC 1.*. Which I didn't think it *ought* to be. Which is why I offered my own definition of what the actual 1.* behavior ought to be.
That said, the following is perfectly legal in ABC 2.0, by the definition currently in the August draft spec: X:1 T:some made up tune M:4/4 K:Dminor abcd|efga|[K:\ G][M:3/4]def|gab| It's just not legal in ABC 1.*. IMHO. -->Steve Bennett > On 16 Mar 2004, at 14:52, I. Oppenheim wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Phil Taylor wrote: >> >>> It's a pretty outrageous example. I don't think that parsers should >>> have to deal with continuations in the middle of inline fields, let >>> alone an example with another (non-inline) field inserted in the >>> middle. >> >> In ABC 2.0, continuations and ordinary comments will >> typically be dealt with by the scanner, before the >> parser even sees them. > > Yes but this was the example: > > X:1 > T:some made up tune > M:4/4 > K:Dminor > abcd|efga|[K:\ > M:3/4 > G]def|gab| > > after dealing with the continued line you get this: > > X:1 > T:some made up tune > M:4/4 > K:Dminor > abcd|efga|[K:M:3/4 > G]def|gab| > > Whether you choose to handle this in the parser or in a preprocessor, > the result still aint legal abc. > > Phil Taylor > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: > http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
