Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?)

Rustom Mody rustompmody at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 07:41:57 CET 2014


On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:03:24 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Something that Chris may relate to:
> > You type a music score into lilypond
> > Then call lilypond to convert it into standard western staff notation
> > Why not put up the lilypond (ASCII) directly on the piano/organ when you play?
> > This is far from rhetorical... ABC,Guido,etc (not python's!) have some
> > claim to be *musically* (not just textually) readable and easier to
> > master than standard staff notation
> > Still for someone
> > - used to staff notation
> > - under the standard presumptions of western music:
> >   -- harmony
> >   -- spelling c# ≠ d♭
> >   -- a note is a note ie C to D is as much a note as D to E
> > staff notation is hard to beat

> I wouldn't say it's hard to beat... I happily beat time while looking
> at staff notation!

> (Of course, I shouldn't beat time. He doesn't like that.)

> Staff notation isn't perfect by any means (and there've been various
> projects to improve on it), but it's a lot better than the "source
> code" form in Lilypond. This is partly because my source code tends to
> look at multiple (often four) separate lines of harmony, often plus a
> separate line of chords, but when I'm playing, I want to be able to
> eyeball all of it at once.

ALl of which is isomorphic to Steven's point that forty is less
eyeballable than 40

And mine that ∅ is more eyeballable than set([])



More information about the Python-list mailing list