[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questions on re-organizing the woodwind (bass-)clarinet stencils
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Questions on re-organizing the woodwind (bass-)clarinet stencils |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:11:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Wim van Dommelen <address@hidden> writes:
> On 4 Feb 2013, at 09:44 , David Kastrup wrote:
>
> First: consider the possibility of keeping an alias "four" to the
> key,
> but let code and documentation stick with side-ees.
>
> I'll look into that.
>
> Second: when doing such a change, it might be worth trying to cook
> up a
> rule for python/convertrules.py in order to let the syntax of
> callers be
> converted automatically.
>
> Fair enough, I looked in this file for how to put in such a rule, but
> similar changes are answered with a "manual update".
Depends on who has been doing the rules. There was a long trend of "we
don't mess with Scheme". But you'll find that some of the more recent
rules (probably starting with those replacing ly:export) mess a _lot_
with Scheme. Something like "find a balanced list of parens in an
assignment to xxx and replace every occurence of the word "four" in it
by side-ees" is actually not all that hard using some preexisting
functions as a building block for generating match strings.
> My aim with this email was also to find out how many people really use
> these diagrams. If there are only very few (my guess, but that may be
> very wrong) it might not be worth the trouble of writing such a rule.
Depends on how much work it is. Once something has been released in a
stable release, one can expect quite a number of users that you are not
going to hear anything from on these lists. If a feature has only been
available in developer releases, breaking compatibility, in particular
for quite recent additions, is less of a concern.
--
David Kastrup