On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:42 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> There's one thing worth clarifying: when i say "syntax changes", i >> mean "changes in how user input looks like". So a renaming of a >> command is a syntax change to me (despite the fact that no grammar >> rules change). >> That's probably confusing - what word should i use when i mean >> "changes in how user input looks like"? > > No idea. What we have under the umbrella of "syntax discussion" > contains three things: lexical units, grammar and vocabulary, mostly > implemented in lexer.ll, parser.yy, and *.ly respectively. In order to > keep syntax predictable, we want to be able to solve most problems just > by extending the vocabulary. That means that lexical units and grammar > should be as generic, powerful, and simple as possible. Specialized > lexical modes take power from the vocabulary. We want to avoid them as > much as possible given our historic constraints.
I completely agree with this. I have been giving some people a hard time in this discussion, but that is primarily for wanting to mess with either lexer.ll or parser.yy. As long as you don't that, I will not object fiercely to what syntax proposal anyone comes up with. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
