On 9/15/16 6:37 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Paul" <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of p...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:
> >Looking at the code, the changes seem pretty straightforward to do. >Assuming we agree this is a good improvement to make, the question I >have is about migrating existing user files to the new property. >Literal strings are easy enough to handle with convert-ly: = "abc" >converts to = #'((id . "abc")) Yes -- this looks good to me. > >The problem is when users have assigned a procedure (that returns a >string) to this property, which is surely a common use case. I don't >see a reasonable way to handle that with convert-ly. Maybe it is >possible but seems like it would get ugly. Just use a can't convert rule; have the user do the conversion. > >So we could make the new property's type be "string-or-list?". (We'd >have to define that predicate.) Then for strings, output a deprecation >warning, but go ahead and handle the string as the user expects. That >would give users time to rewrite their code and then at some future >point we change the type to just "list?" and only support alist values. I think that using string-or-list? would make future code unnecessarily complicated. We should make the change once, rather than dragging it out for years. Let's just face the pain once. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
