Cool,
as I was saying, once I'm out of the swamp I'm in with these two things I'm
trying to get done,
I'll see if I can help you
L
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:07 PM Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > I haven't worked wirh TexInfo markup before, however it occurs to me
> > that lisp is regular enough that with some effort one could hope to
> > scrape out a majority of the function definitions and then use such
> > a database to touch up the help source?
>
> Having a script that converts `@code` to, say, `@lilycode` (which
> would be defined as an alias to `@code` if highlighting is not used)
> for both LilyPond and Scheme inline fragments in the documentation
> would be very welcomed.
>
> > - scrape out what you can with a script (targeting to find 90% or so of
> > what's there)
>
> Yes.
>
> > - add an exception list hand-curated (which mops up the rest)
>
> Maybe.
>
> > - use this stuff to find and 'parse' the contents of the help so
> > that you can then transform it into something else this could
> > give you some 90-95% of the source revised.
> > - mop up again the result by hand
>
> I think these two steps are not necessary.
>
> > If this were a one-off affair, it could be a way to go,
>
> It certainly would be a once-only action.
>
> > I know the docs for lilypond are a huge set, and I'm not sure how
> > translations are implemented.
>
> The translators could use this script, too.
>
> > I'm not suggesting now it's a good time to do this, however if one
> > were to consider such a thing, this seems like it could be a way to
> > do it, purely because Lisp-y things are easy to parse, which makes
> > them relatively robust to detecting decorations such as @var{}
>
> Ah, there is probably a misunderstanding. We don't use `@var` within
> `@code` to mark syntax but meta-ness, for example
>
> ```
> @code{foo-@var{XXX}}
> ```
>
> where @var{XXX} could be a three-digit number. Such situations can
> only be handled manually.
>
>
> Werner
>
