On 2008/07/0615:29 -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > On 7/5/08 2:11 PM, "John Mandereau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's trivial to concatenate rules into a single function, and convert-ly > > applies rules sequentially anyway, so this is not a strong argument > > against merging; if necessary, we can make merged rules clearer with a > > comment for each rule in a conv function with multiple rules. > > Doesn't each rule have a "version, change made" structure? If we put lots > of changes in a single rule, will the "change made" be too complex?
Not at all, as long as we separate rules in the single function for each version with a blank line or even comments. As you may have noticed, multiple rules for one version makes this version number printed as many times when convert-ly updates a file, which is a bit awkward. If you look at previous rules, you'll see a number of rules that make a bunch of syntax changes in the same function, and this is neither more complicated or dangerous. We probably shouldn't make the effort of merging multiple rules for old versions, but the bunch of different rules for 2.11.51 is way too much, I just merged them. I also added at the end of convertrules.py hints to write conversion rules with localization, etc. They may be freely fixed and extended as appropriate. Cheers, John _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
