On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 12:07:07PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > This is also the danger of having broad discussions over syntax. ... > on the basis of how "intuitive" it looks. See also > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality
Yes, that was the whole reason why I wanted to reserve this list for discussions about serious proposals, and let the majority of the bike-shedding happen off-list during the process of creating serious, well-researched proposals. > For an illustrative example > of what can go wrong with lots of well-intentioned decisions are > stacked together, have a look at the following video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yZHbh396rc Yes, that video is hillarious. > In the end, each syntax is a compromise between what you allow for > expressivity, and how much you disallow to stop the user from shooting > himself in the foot. If you decide to "reinvent" the syntax, you are > only moving about the compromise, closing off one nest of rats in > exchange for opening a can of worms. I agree with that. The question is, what happens next? I see three options, but perhaps you see a different "obvious" proposal. 1. declare the 2.16.0 syntax absolutely frozen (possibly with the exception of property names and scheme). Reject absolutely all patches to lily/parser.yy 2. have a serious and respectful discussion on lilypond-devel about these compromises and whether we think it is appropriate to select a different compromise for some portion(s) of the syntax given what we've seen from the past 15 years of LilyPond. 3. have a serious and respectful discussion on a different list, and when those discussions reach a firm proposal, bring that proposal to lilypond-devel for a serious and respectful discussion about the well-researched proposal. So far I don't feel that the discussion has been very fruitful. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
