> Steven Bennett writes: > | 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. > > Well, I'd agree that it's legal ABC 2.0, but I'd also claim that it > should work under the earlier standards. I don't see any reasonable > way that a parser would classify the last line as anything other than > "music", which is the same type as the continued line. It's not a > "header" line, because it doesn't have a ':' in column 2. It doesn't > start with '%'. What else could it be except music?
The problem I have with considering that as legal, is that it could just as easily have been written like this: X:1 T:some made up tune M:4/4 K:Dminor abcd|efga|[\ K:G][M:3/4]def|gab| If the one is legal in 1.*, the other should be. But this second one is a whole lot more ambiguous for a parser. It's just as well if we avoid the problem by treating *both* as illegal in 1.*, since it's unlikely anyone would actually want to use either form. And by doing so, you drastically simplify the parsing process. (Okay... You drastically simplify *my* parsing process. <grin> Someone using a different approach might find what you are suggesting easier to deal with...) -->Steve Bennett To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
