[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: D7#9
From: |
Atte Andre Jensen |
Subject: |
Re: D7#9 |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:14:50 +0200 (CEST) |
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > when I get the time, I will look at what is there and what's wrong. I also
> > think we need to have a discussion anyways about what "system"(s) we want
>
> I don't think we need more discussion. We've had plenty of
> discussions, and nothing conclusive seems to come out, because
> everyone has a different idea of how chords must to look. What we need
> is some solid and tweakable code.
And some clean and consequent definitions. They might reflect one persons
likings, but that's better than trying to make everybody happy with one
definition.
BTW: are you suggesting that something besides the scheme defs is broken?
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
- D7#9, Jonathan Rosanowski, 2002/09/01
- FW: D7#9, Jonathan Rosanowski, 2002/09/01
- D7#9, Jonathan Rosanowski, 2002/09/02
- Re: D7#9, Atte Andre Jensen, 2002/09/03
- Re: D7#9, Atte Andre Jensen, 2002/09/03
- Re: D7#9, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/09/03
- Re: D7#9,
Atte Andre Jensen <=
- Re: D7#9, Jonathan Rosanowski, 2002/09/03
- Re: D7#9, David Raleigh Arnold, 2002/09/03
- Re: D7#9, Thomas Willhalm, 2002/09/04
- Re: D7#9, David Raleigh Arnold, 2002/09/04
- Re: D7#9, Thomas Willhalm, 2002/09/04
- Re: D7#9, David Raleigh Arnold, 2002/09/04
RE: D7#9, Jonathan Rosanowski, 2002/09/03