Re: backslashes in escape rules

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 7/5/08 9:31 AM, "John Mandereau" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 2008/07/05 02:05 -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:51:36 +0200
>> John Mandereau <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I guess the motivation for using "foo" iso. "\\\\foo" for regexp
>>> substitution is making docs updating easier, as running text or
>>> comments sometimes mention the command name without the backslash.
>>
>> That should never happen.
>
> It does:
> Documentation/user/staff.itely:1063:In earlier versions of LilyPond (pre
> 2.11), @code{addQuote} was
>
>
>>   If people use commands in the running
>> text at all -- which they're supposed to avoid if at all possible
>> -- then they should *definitely* use "\foo".
>
> I agree.
>
> Speaking of conversion rules, is it a good idea to have multiple rules
> for one version?  This has no importance from the technical side, but
> this looks awkward in convert-ly messages, so I vote for having at most
> one rule per version.

IMO, it's much more difficult to make (and verify) a rule that covers all of
the changes for a version.  As we currently stand, if I make changes to the
syntax, all I have to do is write a simple rule to cover my changes.  If we
had only one rule per version, then I'd have to integrate my rule with
everybody else's rule.

I vote for keeping the current system regarding convert-ly rules.

Carl