There have been some interesting suggestions and in my last posting I even got sucked a bit into "gee whiz yeah we can do that" mode. But I still haven't seen any convincing arguments about why the next version of PMX shouldn't REQUIRE eTeX and the expanded MusiXTeX. (Cornelius stated that "installing the new MusiXTeX involves some work", and that's true if simply replacing 5 files counts as work). I think what it really comes down to is whether there are any users with computers that are too small to handle the increased capacity. I can't imagine there are, but if you're out there, please speak up, and if there are any other good reasons for continuing to play "small ball" I'd really like to hear them.
--Don Simons >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Don Simons >Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:47 PM >To: 'Werner Icking Music Archive' >Subject: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy > >Hiroaki Morimoto has been working on a new version of MusiXTeX that will >allow 24 instruments and correspondingly more slurs, beams, etc. I have >also >been working to make PMX compatible with the greatly expanded MusiXTeX >capacity. I would like a little feedback to help me decide whether to >include a certain option in PMX. > >The new MusiXTeX will seamlessly process virtually all "old" MusiXTeX >files >when run with any old version of TeX. However, to allow more than 12 >instruments, the command \setmaxinstruments{24} will have to be entered, >and >the file will have to be processed with eTeX. > >The question before me is whether to have PMX once and for all issue >\setmaxinstruments{24}, thereby requiring all new PMX-generated TeX >files to >be processed with eTeX. The alternative is to build into PMX a user >option >to select whether to produce an "old" or "new" MusiXTeX file. Right now >I'm >leaning strongly toward making the new PMX produce only "new" files, >ones >that require the new musixtex.tex and eTeX, and I intend to follow that >course unless I hear any convincing arguments why I should spend the >extra >effort to try to make the new PMX capable of producing "old" MusiXTeX >files >as an option. In any event the current version of PMX will remain >available >as long as there is a host for the software part of WIMA. > >--Don Simons > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >[email protected] mailing list >If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to >http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex- >music
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
