Francisco Vila <paconet....@gmail.com> writes: > Take this as the result of a quick reading of the summary. My comment > as a non-expert is that probably a good, reliably working convert-ly > is a substitute for syntax stability, because it is precisely what > will make your documents compile on the long term.
convert-ly can't work reliably since it does not understand the structure of LilyPond files. The kind of conversion rules I implemented for some things (like converting expressions involving ly:export into expressions using $) are several levels of complexity above the average convert-ly rules. You can't expect people to write rules like that, and they still don't do the trick. Reliable conversions need to understand structure. You can do them on XML. LilyPond is too complex. > So in any case I don't think we should get obsessed with syntax > stability if we can make convert-ly rules work better. One can polish around, but that yields marginal improvements. > Or if lilypond were able to read old files and convert-ly them on the > fly, issuing a warning and suggesting the user to make changes > permanent. > > I'd like to ellaborate a bit more, later. Basically it would mean that you'd need one versioned copy of LilyPond (and/or its parser) for every conversion that convert-ly does. That's not feasible for a local installation. It might be feasible for a web service. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
