"Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> > To: "Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:41 PM > Subject: Re: Further problems with makeLSR > > >> "Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> From: "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:24 PM >>> Subject: Re: Further problems with makeLSR >>> >>> >>>> Oh rats. The problem would be that any changed snippets need to be >>>> copied to snippets/new (after editing their headers appropriately) in >>>> order not to be overwritten by LSR. >>>> >>>> And, of course, after the latest change this concerns a sizable number >>>> of snippets. We need to get this done before the next LSR update. >>>> Anybody up for it? >>> >>> I think that _might_ not be necessary. If it's possible to update >>> them with a convert-ly rule, they should not need adding to >>> snippets/new. >> >> Obviously that does not help since all of the affected snippets were >> actually changed with convert-ly. > > Is that rule definitely in master?
It definitely is. Iff the convert-ly target is 2.17.6 or greater, the rule should be triggered. > MakeLSR runs convert-ly and therefore should come up with the same > change that you produced. So we need to figure out why it doesn't. Does it run the wrong version of convert-ly? >>> Otherwise, we'll end up with too many snippets in /new to be >>> comfortable with. >> >> Where does the comfort level derive from? > > Human beings have to move all the snippets from snippets/new once they > work with the current version of the LSR. A few 10s is achievable. > More than that risks no-one having the incentive to do the drudge. But they won't work with versions of the LSR previous to 2.17.6. >>> Alternatively - does the older syntax still work? >> >> _Some_ of the older syntax continues to work (namely that for >> \override/\revert). >> >> But I don't see that presenting an inconsistent view would make any >> sense here. > > I don't see why the snippets need consistency. I do. We don't want to confuse users by presenting two different versions of syntax. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
