9 Jul
2004
9 Jul
'04
5:24 p.m.
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:39:19PM -0400, Chris
Pickett wrote:
Yes, of course, but the typesetting language _itself_ doesn't have this,
right? I can also do:
\begin{verbatim}
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
foo ();
}
\end{verbatim}
in TeX, but that doesn't make it _programming_. If TeX or the music
typesetting stuff _does_ have this capacity, that would be interesting.
In fact, I think functional / procedural sequencing is pretty neat in
itself, although I don't know much about it at all, if it leads to
anything musical, if it's a well-known technique, etc. etc.
Cheers,
Chris
Michal Seta wrote:
You mean like repeat signs, multiple endings for different times through
a section, codas, DS al capo, etc, etc? Well, I must be a different race of a classical
musician. I have been
trained as a classical musician and I've been trained to read the
black dots with beams people call scores. However, a score is only a
representation of music. The same music could be represented in
different ways. As a guitarist I have learnt to play from a guitar
score, piano score, lead sheet, modern guitar tablature and
medieval/rennaissance tablature (of which there were 2 kinds). These
are all valid representations of musical compositions and they all
have strengths and weaknesses. Any piece of music (as long as it's
within the traditional 12 tone equal temperament) can be represented
using any of the above methods. So why not text? Entering textual
representation of music and following certain _markup_ rules is not
programming. If it were so, simply scoring should be considered
programming, too.
Yes, in my mind, "programming" requires the existance of conditions and
(possibly backward) branches.