[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: adding to the LSR

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: adding to the LSR
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:54:09 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 03:17:46PM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> I'm not certain this is necessary.  OK, it might be good to use
>> word-matching for "\octave " rather than string matching
>> "\octave*", but that's no unique to this occurrance.
>> (no, I don't know the proper regex terms for these)
>> In general, we cannot guarantee that tweaks or tweak names will
>> work after convert-ly.
> In this case and in many other cases, it's very easy to fix the  
> convert-ly rules and doing so will help several other people. The  
> upgrade of LSR is an excellent opportunity to find and fix such problems  
> in convert-ly.


Is it worth defining our own function
  replaceOnly("\\octave", ...)
which does
  re.sub("\\octave[?a-z,A-Z]", ...)
or whatever the regex was?

I imagine that almost every convert-ly rule would benefit from
"match this command, and only this command" rules, so this could
save typing.  And, more to the point, confusion amongst
non-regex-savvy people.

- Graham

reply via email to

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