Re: Further problems with makeLSR

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?
>
> 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.

Obviously that does not help since all of the affected snippets were
actually changed with convert-ly.

> Otherwise, we'll end up with too many snippets in /new to be
> comfortable with.

Where does the comfort level derive from?

> Alternatively - does the older syntax still work?

_Some_ of the older syntax continues to work (namely that for
\override/\revert).

But I don't see that presenting an inconsistent view would make any
sense here.

-- 
David Kastrup