Re: Further problems with makeLSR

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Further problems with makeLSR


> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I've had another go at running makeLSR to update the snippet lists,
> > and this time it seems to be reverting changes David made.  An
> > example:
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/snippets/adding-a-figured-bass-above-or-below-the-not
> > index cfe71cb..6e15690 100644
> > ---
> > a/Documentation/snippets/adding-a-figured-bass-above-or-below-the-notes.ly
> > +++
> > b/Documentation/snippets/adding-a-figured-bass-above-or-below-the-notes.ly
> > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
> > %% and then run scripts/auxiliar/makelsr.py
> > %%
> > %% This file is in the public domain.
> > -\version "2.17.6"
> > +\version "2.16.0"
> >
> > \header {
> >   lsrtags = "ancient-notation, chords, contexts-and-engravers"
> > @@ -32,11 +32,11 @@ bass = {
> > }
> > continuo = \figuremode {
> >   <_>4 <6>4 <5/>4
> > -  \override Staff.BassFigureAlignmentPositioning.direction = #UP
> > +  \override Staff.BassFigureAlignmentPositioning #'direction = #UP
> >
> > makeLSR runs convert-ly, and this seems to be replacing the 2.17.6
> > version number with 2.16.0 and reverting the change to the dot or hash
> > syntax.  It looks as though convert-ly is not picking up the rule to
> > update this syntax properly.  Anyone any idea why?
>
> Oh rats.  The problem would be that any changed snippets need to be
> copied to snippets/new (after editing their headers appropriately) in
> order not to be overwritten by LSR.
>
> And, of course, after the latest change this concerns a sizable number
> of snippets.  We need to get this done before the next LSR update.
> Anybody up for it?
>
> --
> David Kastrup


I think that _might_ not be necessary.  If it's possible to update them with 
a convert-ly rule, they should not need adding to snippets/new.  Otherwise, 
we'll end up with too many snippets in /new to be comfortable with.

Alternatively - does the older syntax still work?

--
Phil Holmes