Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> >Stupid question: since I can see no use for following a fingering with a >> >digit, why don't we just change the parser appropriately? _If_ there is >> >some use for numbers greater than 10 (apart from the current situation, >> >button accordion fingerings may need to be underlined in order to >> >indicate helper rows, and one could likely just put something in the >> >engraver which does this for numbers greater 10, deducting 10 in the >> >process), rather than making yet-another-LSR-snippet, we could just >> >allow larger numbers. > > Sounds good to me!
[...] > I don't think we need a LSR snippet; let's just add the > @knownissue now. Unless David thinks he can make a patch in a few > days...? I am on it. The grammar, however, currently produces additional shift-reduce conflicts after putting UNSIGNED (and equivalents) for DIGIT, implying that we currently have situations where adding another digit to a fingering utterly changes the resulting meaning in certain situations, even though DIGIT is logically a special case of UNSIGNED (but only the lexer knows that, not the parser). So the change is not that simple to make because I have to dig through how the parser conflicts arise. On the plus side, I consider it very unlikely that we want a situation where 34 is properly interpreted as an unsigned number, but changing it to 3 causes an utterly different interpretation. And it would appear that the grammar currently _has_ such a case in it. Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
