H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Nov 12, 2020 08:12 AM UTC:
Original Betza notation was not precise enough to unambiguously indicate this piece. The problem is that even when it is understood that the continuation as zB after the W step should be outward, it is not clear whether the next bend should be in the same or opposit direction.
XBetza currently also cannot describe this piece in a simple way. (It is of course always possible to split up a slider move into a set of lame leaps of various distances, and mention each of these lame leaps and the path they take separately.) Introducing repeats on groups of modifiers would solve it, though. The half of the Crooked Bishop that starts bending to the left is FalFalarFalaralFalaralarF..., and this could be abbreviated to (alar)F(alar)alF if parentheses would be taken to mean zero to arbitrary many repetitions of the enclosed group. The corresponding half of the Harvestman would be Wafr(alar)Wafr(alar)alW.
Original Betza notation was not precise enough to unambiguously indicate this piece. The problem is that even when it is understood that the continuation as zB after the W step should be outward, it is not clear whether the next bend should be in the same or opposit direction.
XBetza currently also cannot describe this piece in a simple way. (It is of course always possible to split up a slider move into a set of lame leaps of various distances, and mention each of these lame leaps and the path they take separately.) Introducing repeats on groups of modifiers would solve it, though. The half of the Crooked Bishop that starts bending to the left is FalFalarFalaralFalaralarF..., and this could be abbreviated to (alar)F(alar)alF if parentheses would be taken to mean zero to arbitrary many repetitions of the enclosed group. The corresponding half of the Harvestman would be Wafr(alar)Wafr(alar)alW.