On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:29:51 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The result ps looks surprisingly good, with the exception of the slashes on the stems
that I want to indicate a roll. The note should look like this (pardon the ASCII
art):
|
|
|/
/|/
/|
|
From: Jeff Bigler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The !...! commands, whether we like them or not, work this way.
Regardles of whether the syntax ends up being !...!, +...+ or
whatever,
the standard could (and IMO should) specify that new fields that
are not
part of the standard must be enclosed between
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Campin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Please can we have yes and no instead of numbers that have to be
looked up in a manual?
0 and 1 are universally Off and On. Check a modern radio, TV, video
recorder or other electronic device sometime.
Bernard Hill
Braeburn
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Please can we have yes and no instead of numbers that have to be
looked up in a manual?
0 and 1 are universally Off and On. Check a modern radio, TV, video
recorder or other electronic device sometime.
...but the problem was that 2 was also an allowed
I hereby request your feedback on the 4th revision
of the ABC draft standard:
http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
1] Since the semantics of the %%staves directive now
differ quite a lot from the original, I decided to
rename it to %%score. This way, old code cannot be
confused with
John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen a few discussions of how slow the RSCDS has been to take
advantage of the Net. My usual comment has been something like: Of
course they're a bunch of conservative fuddy-duddies who are decades
behind the times. The RSCDS exists to
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:45:32 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time)
From: I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote:
Actually I'd rather have them as plain text, since I
have any number of seraching and indexing programs I
can use with that.
If that's all
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Beacuse it broke all possible Pascal standard in existance.
Not at all. It was successful for a different reason entirely.
only your opinion: there's a vast literature on the subject.
It took ISO Pascal, smashed it to the ground, burnt it, turned it
