[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature
From: |
Han-Wen |
Subject: |
Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature |
Date: |
Thu, 23 May 2002 00:43:53 +0200 |
address@hidden writes:
>
> Given this assumption, it seems that we should really modify the
> parser to support mensural notation: the extended \time syntax not
> only sets timeSignatureFraction, but also sets multipliers in the
> parser, so that
> [..]
And in all superfluousness, I would like to add: please try to make a
first implementation without any syntactic sugar. That makes
discussing the inner working much easier. People always get
sidetracked by syntax, when syntax should come _after_ the internal
implementation is done.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen
- Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Juergen Reuter, 2002/05/20
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Mats Bengtsson, 2002/05/20
- Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Han-Wen, 2002/05/20
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Rune Zedeler, 2002/05/21
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Juergen Reuter, 2002/05/22
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Han-Wen, 2002/05/22
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature,
Han-Wen <=
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Laura Conrad, 2002/05/23
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Juergen Reuter, 2002/05/24
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/05/24
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Laura Conrad, 2002/05/24
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Mats Bengtsson, 2002/05/24
- Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature, Juergen Reuter, 2002/05/24