On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:04, Anthony Youngman wrote:
> Might be an idea to look at Antlr then ...
>
> I don't know how effective it would be, but part of the purpose behind
> the v3 rewrite is to increase the number of languages that Antlr can
> generate. If you can define the grammar in Antlr i
sage-
From: Erik Sandberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 July 2006 19:08
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Cc: Anthony Youngman
Subject: Re: Evolutionary User Strategy - A Compromise
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 17:22, Anthony Youngman wrote:
I don't really understand grammars etc (which is why m
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 22:25, Graham Percival wrote:
> Erik Sandberg wrote:
> > There's also the question of what you mean by compatibility: Very
> > advanced tweaks usually rely on the way lily's internals are organised,
> > which may change over time. Since lily contains a Turing-complete
> >
of up-front work. The question is, will it save
more than that in future ... and I think your answer to "is it possible"
is "yes", just is it worth it?
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: Erik Sandberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 July 2006 19:08
To: lilypond-use
Maybe a distinction should be made between bug fixes and other changes, e.g
new features and syntax changes. I would not expect the developers to
preserve bugs, but beyond that I think it is reasonable to hope that a file
I create in version 3.0 should look the same if I process it using version
Erik Sandberg wrote:
There's also the question of what you mean by compatibility: Very advanced
tweaks usually rely on the way lily's internals are organised, which may
change over time. Since lily contains a Turing-complete programming language,
for some language updates it is thereby _impossi
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 17:22, Anthony Youngman wrote:
> I don't really understand grammars etc (which is why my DATABASIC thing
> is on/off :-).
>
> But from my experience with Antlr, I don't see why you should lose
> stuff. Your PEG article mentions ASTs. I don't see that converting a .ly
> fil
ven understand what \relative was :-)
I might play with this when I get my hands on Antlr 3, but don't bank on
it.
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: Erik Sandberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 July 2006 13:55
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Cc: Anthony Youngman
Subject: Re: Evolutionar
On 7/12/06, Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 12:59, Anthony Youngman wrote:> Something I thought of (having seen the comment about convert-ly using> grep ...)It's not using grep, but it relies heavily on regexps (so it can somewhat
fairly be compared to sed).> I've
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 12:59, Anthony Youngman wrote:
> Something I thought of (having seen the comment about convert-ly using
> grep ...)
It's not using grep, but it relies heavily on regexps (so it can somewhat
fairly be compared to sed).
> I've got an on-off thing about writing a DATABASIC
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 12:00, Colin Wilding wrote:
> This is an important dilemma for many users, I think - we want to have all
> the fixes and features in each new version, but find it frustrating when
> music produced in earlier versions needs time-consuming manual editing to
> upgrade.
>
> Ca
hange in lily that requires a paradigm shift ...
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wilding
Sent: 12 July 2006 11:01
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Evolutionary User Strategy - A Compromise
This is an importan
This is an important dilemma for many users, I think - we want to have all
the fixes and features in each new version, but find it frustrating when
music produced in earlier versions needs time-consuming manual editing to
upgrade.
Can I suggest a compromise?
I accept that Lilypond has been evol
13 matches
Mail list logo
