> Rather than proposing something by way of example, I would like to
> see all proposals in the form of a parser patch that does not
> introduce extra shift/reduce or reduce/reduce conflicts, and
> maintains general backward compatibility. If a proposer manages to
> get that far, I promise I will take a serious look at it.
You are exaggerating, aren't you? With this prerequisite, very useful
stuff like `q' would have never been implemented. It took David a
long time to generalize it, but IMHO it was worth the trouble.
Perhaps we should start differently: Instead of making ad-hoc syntax
suggestions, let's collect experienced user reports about the most
annoying LilyPond syntax issues. The stress lies on *user*, not
developer. Then parser experts can have a look whether changes are
possible and useful.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
