Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 10/08/12 02:23, David Kastrup wrote:
>> It would have been 3+2/8 at any rate since throwing parens into the
>> token syntax would have further messed up the ambiguities, and forms
>> like 3/2+2/5 would not likely have worked.
>
> Could it improve matters to ha
On 10/08/12 02:23, David Kastrup wrote:
It would have been 3+2/8 at any rate since throwing parens into the
token syntax would have further messed up the ambiguities, and forms
like 3/2+2/5 would not likely have worked.
Could it improve matters to have instead something like,
3:2 + 2:5
...
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> It would mean that 3/2+2/5 would mean #((3 2) (2 5)) basically wherever
> you chose to write it. Since we don't have a use for it anywhere except
> after \time (and it is actually a rather uncommon use of time), it seems
> like overkill.
>
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Janek Warchoł writes:
>>> Sorry, i don't understand. You mean that you know how to do this, but
>>> there's something else blocking you from implementing it?
>>
>> If two different things are indistinguishable, yo
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>> Sorry, i don't understand. You mean that you know how to do this, but
>> there's something else blocking you from implementing it?
>
> If two different things are indistinguishable, you can't have them both.
>
> If
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:05 AM
> Not much discussion after the mid-way point. I'm not certain if
> this means that everybody agrees, or they just think I'm
> completely wrong and it's not worth even discussing it (as
> happened with the first proposal for stable releas
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:07 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>>> In general, yes. But some aspects of our syntax haven't been
>>> around for a long time -- footnotes, woodwind fingering, compound
>>> meters, etc. Do we have the best syntax for th
Dear Team,
sorry for a late answer - it took some time to formulate my thoughts.
First, a quite obvious remark: keeping old binaries isn't a solution
to syntax problems at all, because they may not run on new platforms
and don't contain new features and bugfixes.
As for convert-ly, i'm not oppos
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:46:41PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:09:51PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> \tempo syntax is quite an abomination. It is one of those things that
> >> regularly cause parser changes to trip up.
> >
> > \times
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:09:51PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
>>
>> > I'd sent out a note of agreement before but I'll send out another one
>> > just to signal that I'm 100% for incrementally freezing parts of
>> > LilyPond's syntax.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:09:51PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
>
> > I'd sent out a note of agreement before but I'll send out another one
> > just to signal that I'm 100% for incrementally freezing parts of
> > LilyPond's syntax. Specifically, I'm comfortable say
"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
> On 9 août 2012, at 11:05, Graham Percival wrote:
>> \version "2.16.0"
>> \score {
>> \new Staff {
>>\new Voice {
>> \relative c, {
>>\clef "bass"
>>\time 3/4
>>\tempo "Andante" 4 = 120
>>c2\mp e8 c' |
>>g'2. |
>>
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:05:14AM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
>
>
> ** Subset for first phase
>
> In greater detail: I’m suggesting that we have multiple rounds of
> syntax stabilization. The proposed elements of current lilypond
> notation which we will stabilize is captured by these two fil
On 9 août 2012, at 11:05, Graham Percival wrote:
> Not much discussion after the mid-way point. I'm not certain if
> this means that everybody agrees, or they just think I'm
> completely wrong and it's not worth even discussing it (as
> happened with the first proposal for stable release handli
Not much discussion after the mid-way point. I'm not certain if
this means that everybody agrees, or they just think I'm
completely wrong and it's not worth even discussing it (as
happened with the first proposal for stable release handling).
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_4.html
** Summary
15 matches
Mail list logo
