[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:51:34 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Francisco Vila <address@hidden> writes:

> Take this as the result of a quick reading of the summary. My comment
> as a non-expert is that probably a good, reliably working convert-ly
> is a substitute for syntax stability, because it is precisely what
> will make your documents compile on the long term.

convert-ly can't work reliably since it does not understand the
structure of LilyPond files.  The kind of conversion rules I implemented
for some things (like converting expressions involving ly:export into
expressions using $) are several levels of complexity above the average
convert-ly rules.  You can't expect people to write rules like that, and
they still don't do the trick.

Reliable conversions need to understand structure.  You can do them on
XML.  LilyPond is too complex.

> So in any case I don't think we should get obsessed with syntax
> stability if we can make convert-ly rules work better.

One can polish around, but that yields marginal improvements.

> Or if lilypond were able to read old files and convert-ly them on the
> fly, issuing a warning and suggesting the user to make changes
> permanent.
> I'd like to ellaborate a bit more, later.

Basically it would mean that you'd need one versioned copy of LilyPond
(and/or its parser) for every conversion that convert-ly does.  That's
not feasible for a local installation.  It might be feasible for a web

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]