On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 03/09/12 14:18, David Kastrup wrote: >> I don't have a good answer here, and I am not particularly happy with >> suggesting that the work I end up doing will not likely be shaped much >> by committee or community decisions but rather mostly by my own >> conscience and programmer instincts. Which, in turn, are shaped by the >> perceived needs of the community. > > Would it be better in this respect if, instead of proposing syntax changes > (which are easily problematic if done without sufficient knowledge of how > the parser and lexer work), we collaborated on defining the _problem_ with > sufficient rigour? That is, identifying what the syntax needs to achieve > and how the current syntax fails.
+1. I think i have to stop talking about my ideas all the time. :) I'll take a break and focus on defining problems. > Then, once the problem _is_ rigorously defined and agreed upon, you and the > others who understand the technical issues could propose a solution, and we > could provide feedback in terms of usability, whether it actually _does_ > solve the problem we face and so on, and so evolve towards a solution. +1. cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
