I'm sorry, but I am quite confused.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:02:19AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Anything that can be automated, that otherwise would require manual
> intervention or attention, should be automated.
I definitely agree with this.
> I do not care if the tool is 50MB to install. I would not care
> if it is 200MB to install.
> If things can be simplified, if dependencies can be dropped, if things
> can be sped-up, even better.
I agree with these.
> Of course, if a similar result can be obtained by a simple tool such as
> astyle, that's perfect. It's a huge win. But the argument: we won't
> automate this and will document deviating manual procedures that will
> require all [GNU] hackers to manually jump through these hoops because
> automating it requires a 50MB tool and in theory the tool could be much
> smaller...isn't that just silly?
If I understand this paragraph correctly, then there has been a
large communication problem. I am not proposing that we document
manual procedures. Instead, I am proposing that we use automatic
formatting for scheme files.
I see two candidates for such automation:
1. the fix-scheme.sh script that Carl was writing. This
introduces no additional dependencies.
2. a new fix-scheme-with-emacs.sh script which calls emacs to
format a text file, i.e. something like
find -name "*.scm" | \
xargs emacs -batch \
-l misc/our-emacs-formatting \
-f our-emacs-format-function
This second option adds the additional dependency of emacs.
Either option will result in consistent indentation in scheme
files, and furthermore can be easily re-applied every few months
in case people deviate. (for example, a week ago some C++ files
contained tabs instead of spaces; running our fixcc.py script
fixed that)
Option #1 probably requires something like 1 hour of work before
it is ready. Option #2 probably requires something like 10
minutes of work by somebody who knows emacs and shell scripts. I
would be happy with either option. I would also be happy to adopt
#2 on a temporary basis, while possibly switching to #1 at some
point in the future if we can duplicate emacs formatting with a
standalone script.
If there is tentative agreement with this, then I will re-examine
the proposal carefully to see where the misunderstandings arose
and fix them; then I will re-submit the proposal.
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
