Re: PATCH - DOC: Added @knownissue to NR for fingering

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> >Stupid question: since I can see no use for following a fingering with a
>> >digit, why don't we just change the parser appropriately?  _If_ there is
>> >some use for numbers greater than 10 (apart from the current situation,
>> >button accordion fingerings may need to be underlined in order to
>> >indicate helper rows, and one could likely just put something in the
>> >engraver which does this for numbers greater 10, deducting 10 in the
>> >process), rather than making yet-another-LSR-snippet, we could just
>> >allow larger numbers.
>
> Sounds good to me!

[...]

> I don't think we need a LSR snippet; let's just add the
> @knownissue now.  Unless David thinks he can make a patch in a few
> days...?

I am on it.  The grammar, however, currently produces additional
shift-reduce conflicts after putting UNSIGNED (and equivalents) for
DIGIT, implying that we currently have situations where adding another
digit to a fingering utterly changes the resulting meaning in certain
situations, even though DIGIT is logically a special case of UNSIGNED
(but only the lexer knows that, not the parser).

So the change is not that simple to make because I have to dig through
how the parser conflicts arise.

On the plus side, I consider it very unlikely that we want a situation
where 34 is properly interpreted as an unsigned number, but changing it
to 3 causes an utterly different interpretation.  And it would appear
that the grammar currently _has_ such a case in it.

Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.

-- 
David Kastrup