On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: >Janek wrote: >> In this case, my understanding is that David was arguing against some >> recent proposals because they would make it hard or impossible to >> achieve corehence of design. Unfortunately, from what i see Graham >> understood that David is arguing on the base of implementation (i.e. >> "no, because we already wrote it the other way"). This seems to me to >> be a serious misunderstanding. > > Well, those discussions are usually going along the lines "let's replace > x with y and/or do x in this manner" -- "that would not be how we do it > elsewhere, how is that supposed to fit with everything else?" -- "I was > not talking about everything else. You are changing the subject".
Hmm. I don't have such an impression, so we have a problem. Can we chat tomorrow? I can be online any time between 9 and 22 (your time). > Now naturally I am not all too much interested in designing detailed > approached for working around the shortcomings of proposals I consider > going in the wrong direction in the first place. But since nobody else > does it either, I am a single point of failure. Well, we need to find a solution to this problem. >> Unfortunately, David seems to be the only active developer that >> understands some parser subtleties - in other words, only he fully >> knows the whys. > > Well, there is nothing magic about that as nobody else ever looks at the > parser. I understand that you're frustrated, but please note that i'm trying to read and review your syntax patches. Unfortunately i don't have time to study them until i understand how they work - I wish i could, but i don't have enough time now. I'm asking questions and i had learned some things about parser already. best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
