Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> writes: > LilyPond's grammar, however, is complex due to history and its complex > job. It is twice the length of that for C or Pascal, and growing. I > have tried to use the printed grammar to understand LilyPond, but > never succeeded.
Well, in the last two years, many things have been reimplemented as music functions, and music functions have become very generic, using lexical tie-ins here and for other purposes. The number of reserved words recognized specifically in the grammar has dropped quite a bit. So a lot of information about LilyPond constructs is no longer in the grammar, and the grammar contains a lot of "noise" that has no recognizable relation to the LilyPond language as it is being used. This means that the printed grammar has lost much of its utility as a resource for understanding LilyPond's operation. Instead, its purpose is mostly figuring out the whereabouts of parser problems. And that is, indeed, not useful for the average user. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
