On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 07:25:21AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 7/27/09 4:22 AM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > > Lilypond Syntax Development (tentative name) > > Are you on mind-altering drugs? ;)
All the time, baby... sugar, caffene... I suppose even water qualifies. I mean, if I didn't drink water, my mind would certainly be altered! > > However, I think we now have a critical mass of interested users, > > experience with the syntax, and developers. I therefore propose > > to have a Grand Project devoted to stabilizing the lilypond input > > format. > > There's probably another reason why it makes sense to do this at this time: > the syntax has largely settled down. Yes. There's still a few inconsistencies such as \hideNotes, but a determined push can clear up all those issues. > > - tweaks will not be included. Anything with \override, \set, > > \overrideProperty, \tweak, \revert, \unset, #(blah blah) ... > > including even those names themselves... is still fair game for > > NOT_SMART convert-ly updates. > > One nice thing about this limitation is that it allows ongoing syntax > development outside of the base syntax. That is, if somebody wants to > develop a new feature that is incompatible with the existing base syntax, > they can do so in the form of a tweak (in the general sense, not the \tweak > sense). They can work out the bugs, get the functionality going, and have > usable output, even if it can't be added to the base syntax yet. So this > preserves flexibility for development, while stabilizing syntax for standard > usage. Yes. Also, the internal definition of \voiceOne or \pointAndClickOn can still be altered at a whim, as long as we update ly/property-init.ly. > > Reinhold and Frederick: as you may have guessed, I'm proposing > > that your patch waits until 3.0. Anything requiring such manual > > tweaks will make some people very unhappy, such as mutopia. > > What if we added the new crescendo syntax as new syntax (e.g. with something > like \newcresc), and kept the old syntax as well (so as not to break > existing scores)? Good idea. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
