[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Further problems with makeLSR
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Further problems with makeLSR |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:21:47 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Further problems with makeLSR
>
>
>> "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
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Is that rule definitely in master?
It definitely is. Iff the convert-ly target is 2.17.6 or greater, the
rule should be triggered.
> MakeLSR runs convert-ly and therefore should come up with the same
> change that you produced.
So we need to figure out why it doesn't. Does it run the wrong version
of convert-ly?
>>> Otherwise, we'll end up with too many snippets in /new to be
>>> comfortable with.
>>
>> Where does the comfort level derive from?
>
> Human beings have to move all the snippets from snippets/new once they
> work with the current version of the LSR. A few 10s is achievable.
> More than that risks no-one having the incentive to do the drudge.
But they won't work with versions of the LSR previous to 2.17.6.
>>> 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.
>
> I don't see why the snippets need consistency.
I do. We don't want to confuse users by presenting two different
versions of syntax.
--
David Kastrup
- Further problems with makeLSR, Phil Holmes, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, David Kastrup, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, Phil Holmes, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, David Kastrup, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, Phil Holmes, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, Phil Holmes, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, David Kastrup, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, Phil Holmes, 2012/11/02
- Re: Further problems with makeLSR, Phil Holmes, 2012/11/02