David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > >> We have a dump of the bison grammar in the contributor guide (see >> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/lilypond-grammar). >> >> Is there any value in keeping this? It complicates the generation, as >> it is a cross-directory dependency. > > Much of LilyPond's language has been offloaded to music functions and > the parsing of music function arguments uses synthetic tokens and to a > good degree is directed not as much from the rules but the underlying > actions. > > As an end user tool, it
by which I mean the printed Bison grammar > reflects far too little of what the input > language of LilyPond is about. And it does not contain enough to work > with when placed, say, in the CG. While one might want to think about > whether the responsible scripts could in any useful manner be > contributed to Bison by which I mean the GNU project "Bison" > (after all, Texinfo is the official GNU > documentation language), for LilyPond itself it does no longer make much > sense in my opinion. > > It (the printed Bison grammar) > allows interpreting the output of -ddebug-parser of a binary by which I mean a LilyPond binary > corresponding to the version of the NR. But the complexity of > LilyPond's grammar is such that I would not expect somebody not working > with a full checkout-out source to be likely in a capacity of > interpreting the respective traces of Bison. Sorry for writing too much between the lines. -- David Kastrup
