Re: Syntax change proposal:

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:43 PM


> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote Monday, July 16, 2012 9:18 AM
>>
>>
>>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:02:31AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> One really ugly problem is interpreting things like "4.".  Looks like a
>>>>> duration, but then we have
>>>>> input/regression/dynamics-broken-hairpin.ly:  line-width = 4.\cm
>>>>
>>>> I am against making a change like this outwith[1] of GLISS.  It
>>>> could involve a lot of user pain (and documentation-editing
>>>> pain!), so I think it's important to at least pretend[2] to have
>>>> good user consultation beforehand.
>>> 
>>> I disagree with "a lot of user pain".
>>> 
>>>> As far as the actual proposal goes, I'm generally in favor.
>>
>> [snip a long convincing argument]
>>
>> I'm generally in favour too, but I'd be happier if this were deferred
>> until 2.17.
> 
> Well, let's see what the parser currently delivers in INITIAL mode.

[snip more convincing argument]

> I am not convinced that this is an area that's really good for keeping.
> The semantics of -., for example, were introduced in 2.15.9 with
> 
> commit da949cdcede0ffb559e9e5e2adbae2088ba1f6d6

Ah, that's new information

> so it is not like stable release users rely on them.  While most is
> older than that, I am not overly impressed with it either.

The only question in my mind is, how confident are you that
the change you are contemplating will not introduce
unforeseen problems, perhaps later?  If you are really
confident they will not, then let's go with it.  But don't forget, 
few at present on the list can sensibly review changes to the 
parser.

Trevor