Re: PATCH - DOC: Added @knownissue to NR for fingering

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >Stupid question: since I can see no use for following a fingering with a
>>> >digit, why don't we just change the parser appropriately?  _If_ there is
>>> >some use for numbers greater than 10 (apart from the current situation,
>>> >button accordion fingerings may need to be underlined in order to
>>> >indicate helper rows, and one could likely just put something in the
>>> >engraver which does this for numbers greater 10, deducting 10 in the
>>> >process), rather than making yet-another-LSR-snippet, we could just
>>> >allow larger numbers.
>>
>> Sounds good to me!
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't think we need a LSR snippet; let's just add the
>> @knownissue now.  Unless David thinks he can make a patch in a few
>> days...?
>
> I am on it.  The grammar, however, currently produces additional
> shift-reduce conflicts after putting UNSIGNED (and equivalents) for
> DIGIT, implying that we currently have situations where adding another
> digit to a fingering utterly changes the resulting meaning in certain
> situations, even though DIGIT is logically a special case of UNSIGNED
> (but only the lexer knows that, not the parser).
>
> So the change is not that simple to make because I have to dig through
> how the parser conflicts arise.
>
> On the plus side, I consider it very unlikely that we want a situation
> where 34 is properly interpreted as an unsigned number, but changing it
> to 3 causes an utterly different interpretation.  And it would appear
> that the grammar currently _has_ such a case in it.
>
> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.

Here is one example where -3 and -13 do totally different things:

xxxx=-3
yyyy=-13
#(display xxxx)
#(display yyyy)


-- 
David Kastrup