David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Here is one example where -3 and -13 do totally different things:
xxxx=-3 yyyy=-13 #(display xxxx) #(display yyyy)
-- David Kastrup
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
