Re: convert-ly rule for beams

[David Kastrup]

"address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:

> Hey all,
>
> Before I push the beam slope patch, I wanted to touch base regarding
> convert-ly rules for it so I avoid the problems I ran into with flags.
> In this patch, I am eliminating several Scheme callbacks (but not the
> properties for which these callbacks are used - namely, the positions
> property for Beam).
>
> Would the elimination of callback functions count as a change in input
> syntax?  My crude understanding of what "syntax" means says no, but
> I'd rather err on the side of caution.  If a rule needs to be written,
> I'll write a NOT_SMART rule for the defunct functions.

IIRC, convert-ly did not forage into Scheme.  If you remove the
functions, is it because they stopped doing something useful?

Anyway, if previously working code now fails complaining about undefined
functions, it might be worth mentioning in an obvious place where the
offended user might look first.

changes.tely?  Or is that too user-level?

-- 
David Kastrup