John Henckel a skrivas:
> It's true that when the new ABC standard become approved (I say, hopefully)
> then a lot of software will need to be rewritten to handle the new file
> format.
Not sure: most of the ABC syntax is already well parsed.
> Perhaps someone could write a really portable A
Laura Conrad writes:
> John> seems that some people here are saying that in some cases cautionary
> John> accidentals ARE musically significant.
>
>No, I think what we're saying is that cautionary accidentals are easy
>to confuse with editorial accidentals, which *are* musically
>significant.
What I did for Skink was to write a parser in JavaCC (a java
compiler compiler) which builds a list of objects that represent
the elements of a tune - I then process that list sequentially
to create the notation. The plan is to process the same list
to produce the music, but since I haven't imple
> "John" == John Henckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I think that cautionary accidentals are not musically significant.
John> Whether or not to include them is an editorial decision. However, it
John> seems that some people here are saying that in some cases cautionary
At 09:32 AM 11/17/2000 +, Phil Taylor wrote:
>If I put in an accidental where none is required it's because I
>want it displayed there, and if I put it in parentheses it's
>because I want it to display that way.
When music is put on paper there are two inputs, the MUSICAL input, and the
STYL
Maybe I'm missing the point of this discussion, but it seems to
me that what an abc display program ought to do with accidentals
is to reproduce EXACTLY what the transcriber put into the abc.
If I put in an accidental where none is required it's because I
want it displayed there, and if I put it i
>> The syntax being discussed is nothing but a way of saying,
>> "this accidental isn't really necessary."
> No, it's a way of saying "If you're a printer program, print this with
> parentheses around the sharp". "This accidental isn't necessary" is
> one of the things we use parentheses to indi
> "John" == John Atchley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> How do you figure that is going to "clutter up the clef with
John> unnecessary accidentals whether they're needed or not???"
I was thinking you were going to parse ABC notes without accidentals
if someone said they wanted cau
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Laura Conrad wrote:
> > "John" == John Atchley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> Just in case I got too wordy and unclear in my other
> John> response here's a bit of pseudo-code:
>
> John> if (accidental_in_abc_source is musically_necessary) {
> Joh
John A.,
I agree with you 100% that cautionary accidentals can and should be handled
by the typesetting program, NOT with special syntax in the ABC music
file. I took the liberty to rewrite your pseudo code. IMO, if the user
specifies an unnecessary accidental, then the typesetter should sho
> "John" == John Atchley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Just in case I got too wordy and unclear in my other
John> response here's a bit of pseudo-code:
John> if (accidental_in_abc_source is musically_necessary) {
John> unconditionally display accidental
John> }
> "John" == John Atchley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The (^) syntax is precisely a method for the person who wants to print
>> a sharp in parentheses to specify this. Whether the sharp is one that
>> the program would figure out to add or not. What's your idea for how
>>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Laura Conrad wrote:
> The (^) syntax is precisely a method for the person who wants to print
> a sharp in parentheses to specify this. Whether the sharp is one that
> the program would figure out to add or not. What's your idea for how
> to get this?
Just in case I got too
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Laura Conrad wrote:
> Either I don't understand what you're proposing, or you aren't talking
> about the same thing as the rest of us. How do you let the person
> printing the score control what accidentals are printed without
> providing a syntax for doing so?
>
> The (^)
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Phil Taylor wrote:
> It's a lovely idea, but it gets awfully complicated when you think
> about it. What would the output of such a parser be? Some programs want
> to make a picture of the staff notation, and would therefore want
> postscript, gif or something of that ilk.
Phil Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The early music people need a different convention, where accidentals
>affect only the note to which they are attached, but I think that behaviour
>should be obtainable via a local switch, and the modern convention should
>be the default.
This seems right.
Phil Taylor writes:
| John Henckel wrote:
| > ... Perhaps someone could write a really portable ABC parser and then
| >give away the source code that each developer can just "plug it in" to
| >their ABC tool (abc2midi, abc2abc, abc2ps, abc2win, abc2???,
| >etc...) There's no sense in everyone re
John Henckel wrote:
>It's true that when the new ABC standard become approved (I say, hopefully)
>then a lot of software will need to be rewritten to handle the new file
>format. Perhaps someone could write a really portable ABC parser and then
>give away the source code that each developer can j
> "John" == John Atchley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, John Henckel wrote:
>> At 09:33 AM 11/15/2000 +, Phil wrote:
>> >Seems reasonable, although just putting the accidental in a paren would
>> >be more intuitive: (^)C etc. Harder to code though,
It's true that when the new ABC standard become approved (I say, hopefully)
then a lot of software will need to be rewritten to handle the new file
format. Perhaps someone could write a really portable ABC parser and then
give away the source code that each developer can just "plug it in" to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, John Henckel wrote:
> At 09:33 AM 11/15/2000 +, Phil wrote:
> >Seems reasonable, although just putting the accidental in a paren would
> >be more intuitive: (^)C etc. Harder to code though, as you have to
> >distinguish it from the other uses to which parens are put.
>
>
Steve Mansfield wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
| >Notation for parenthesized accidentals is a good idea. We've had a
| >number of suggestions that (^)A or (=)B be legal. This is probably
| >the most intuitive solution, and doesn't seem to conflict with the
| >use of parens for slurs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
>Notation for parenthesized accidentals is a good idea. We've had a
>number of suggestions that (^)A or (=)B be legal. This is probably
>the most intuitive solution, and doesn't seem to conflict with the
>use of parens for slurs. There was a suggestion that ?^A b
John Henckel wrote:
>In abcm2ps there is a bug. If an accidental is used several times in the
>same measure, it draws all of them. Thus, K:F and " =B =B " will print two
>notes with naturals in front of them, but only the FIRST one should have a
>natural sign. I am going to fix jhabc2ps so that
> "Phil" == Phil Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Phil> I don't think this is a bug. If the user puts two accidentals in the
Phil> same bar, predumably she _wants_ the second to be drawn. It's not
Phil> musically necessary.
I agree.
Phil> The early music people need a
At 09:33 AM 11/15/2000 +, Phil wrote:
>Seems reasonable, although just putting the accidental in a paren would
>be more intuitive: (^)C etc. Harder to code though, as you have to
>distinguish it from the other uses to which parens are put.
You're right. I will try to do this. I think it wil
John Henckel wrote:
>I recommend that when (if?) the ABC notation standard is updated, it should
>contain syntax for "helper" accidentals.
>
>I am going to hack my version of abcm2ps (called jhabc2ps) to support
>accidentals in parentheses. Does anyone have a recommendation for the
>syntax?
>
>I
On Tue 14 Nov 2000 at 11:16PM -0600, John Henckel wrote:
>
> Also I recommend the ABC standard should clarify whether repeated
> accidentals are required or not. For instance, given K:C, is " ^c c | ^c "
> three c-sharps in a row? Or is the second c a natural? According to
> abcm2ps, the se
I recommend that when (if?) the ABC notation standard is updated, it should
contain syntax for "helper" accidentals.
I am going to hack my version of abcm2ps (called jhabc2ps) to support
accidentals in parentheses. Does anyone have a recommendation for the
syntax?
I am thinking about using '
At 10:18 AM 10/8/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>Anyway; how do I get the brackets 'round the accidental in abc?
I have the same question. Unfortunately, it appears to be not possible
using any of the variants of abc2ps.
We could allow syntax similar to that used for triplets, such as "v(^c",
to be
On Sun 08 Oct 2000 at 07:19AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
>
> I have also proposed that there be an extension to the current syntax
> so that a ^, _, or = enclosed in parentheses would be printed that
> way. I don't remember anyone either disagreeing with this or rushing
> to implement it.
>
T
> "Atte" == Jensen writes:
Atte> Anyway; how do I get the brackets 'round the accidental in abc?
We've discussed this; there's a similar problem in early music, where
the notation didn't always include accidentals that "everybody" would
know to play, and modern editors want to put the
Hi
Often you see "reminder accidentals", that are actually not
neccesary. Since I don't know the exact term in english I give a quice
example: At some point you have a Db (the tune is in Eb) and in the next
bar you have a D natural. But to make sure it's actually played "D" and
not "Db" you put t
33 matches
Mail list logo
