Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > 2012/2/4 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: >>> what were you trying to do and what caused problems, Jan? > > I was trying to completely rewrite Patchy. Graham's implementation > seemed too complicated to me. > >>> I've not looked at the attached file, >> >> I have not looked either. > > Please do. There's a readme and a file with detailed specifications > for some procedures (algorithms written in pseudocode, step by step). > I failed exactly at translating these algorithms to a nicely written > Python code handling logs, exceptions etc. Yes, it's that stupid. I > wrote down /how/ things should work, but failed at writing code. > If you find contents of SPECIFICATIONS file useful, that's what i can > do quite effectively.
That puts it out of my league. I am not a Python programmer, so if at all, I change badly working Python code to reasonably well-working Python code. But writing something from scratch in a language I don't know anything of is not really an option for me. > Or maybe i'm completely wrong and all of this is useless; i'm too > upset to tell. I could likely crossread the pseudocode and make improvements, but without anybody turning the pseudocode into actual code, that would be sort of pointless. If Python is the major problem: what kind of language would you imagine rather be doing this in? Shell scripts and Guile are two options that should be easily available as well. I am not saying you should do this: I am trying to get a feel about the toolboxes we can expect people to be able to work with productively. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
