thanks, I'll take this as an OK to drop grammar from the manual. On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:19 AM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > > > Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> We have a dump of the bison grammar in the contributor guide (see > >> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/lilypond-grammar). > >> > >> Is there any value in keeping this? It complicates the generation, as > >> it is a cross-directory dependency. > > > > Much of LilyPond's language has been offloaded to music functions and > > the parsing of music function arguments uses synthetic tokens and to a > > good degree is directed not as much from the rules but the underlying > > actions. > > > > As an end user tool, it > > by which I mean the printed Bison grammar > > > reflects far too little of what the input > > language of LilyPond is about. And it does not contain enough to work > > with when placed, say, in the CG. While one might want to think about > > whether the responsible scripts could in any useful manner be > > contributed to Bison > > by which I mean the GNU project "Bison" > > > (after all, Texinfo is the official GNU > > documentation language), for LilyPond itself it does no longer make much > > sense in my opinion. > > > > It > > (the printed Bison grammar) > > > allows interpreting the output of -ddebug-parser of a binary > > by which I mean a LilyPond binary > > > corresponding to the version of the NR. But the complexity of > > LilyPond's grammar is such that I would not expect somebody not working > > with a full checkout-out source to be likely in a capacity of > > interpreting the respective traces of Bison. > > Sorry for writing too much between the lines. > > -- > David Kastrup
-- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
