Re: Clarify notation for slurs and beams (issue 343060043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2018/05/01 20:14:34, thomasmorley651 wrote:

> in the light of your findings and David's reply (#17) I changed my
mind about
> those "-"-signs and now agree we should not make them a topic here.
> Anyway, I found the discussion very instructive, helping me to get a
deeper
> understanding. I hope it was not too tedious for you.

One really has to understand that the rules in the grammar describe what
constructs are accepted and interpreted in what manner.  They don't
assign a logic or meaning to them.  It makes the grammar easier to read
when the rules are laid according to a higher-level plan, but the
restrictions of an LALR(1) parser generator (which is what the rules are
written for) don't leave a lot of leeway of expressing the concepts of
LilyPond straightforwardly.

In addition, quite a bit of the "inherent logic" has been designed after
the fact and then those rules/productions not matching that logic have
been meddled with.

The grammar is the ultimate source of information about how LilyPond
will behave, but not what that means.  That's ultimately for the
documentation writers to decide.

https://codereview.appspot.com/343060043/