[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not

From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling
Subject: Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:14:49 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0

On 27/07/12 11:11, Graham Percival wrote:
Think of the stable notation as a subset, not the complete set.

Yes, fair enough -- it's very likely changes can be done additively and if not for the traditional syntax to be maintained as syntactic sugar.

Hmm.  I'll have to think about this more.  My first thought is
that sources of syntax problems is changing the syntax -- but
rather being a "duh" moment, my point is that we've never changed
the note-names and basic rhythms, so there's no data about how
hard that would be.  Users would need to memorize a new set of
note-namess (not hard, but annoying), programs which export
lilypond would need to be updated, etc.

Well, since the question of the default note-name language was raised, that seems like a good basic way to test the difficulty of rewriting core syntax -- how difficult is it in practice to convert automatically from Dutch to English?

To me the users' need is the single most important reason to stabilize, together with 3rd-party tools that _read_ Lilypond -- for archival purposes, or 3rd-party tools that write to LP, the only thing that matters is that there is a reliable converter. That's why I'd stress getting good data on what syntax changes cause convert-ly failures.

I'll wrap your concern into the next version of this proposal and
send it out later today or tomorrow.  That should give it extra
visibility and somebody may have a good suggestion about it.

Cool!  Will look forward to it. :-)

reply via email to

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