On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 03:17:46PM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote:
>>
>> I'm not certain this is necessary. OK, it might be good to use
>> word-matching for "\octave " rather than string matching
>> "\octave*", but that's no unique to this occurrance.
>> (no, I don't know the proper regex terms for these)
>>
>> In general, we cannot guarantee that tweaks or tweak names will
>> work after convert-ly.
>>
> In this case and in many other cases, it's very easy to fix the
> convert-ly rules and doing so will help several other people. The
> upgrade of LSR is an excellent opportunity to find and fix such problems
> in convert-ly.
Ok.
Is it worth defining our own function
replaceOnly("\\octave", ...)
which does
re.sub("\\octave[?a-z,A-Z]", ...)
or whatever the regex was?
I imagine that almost every convert-ly rule would benefit from
"match this command, and only this command" rules, so this could
save typing. And, more to the point, confusion amongst
non-regex-savvy people.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
