[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Syntax change proposal:
From: |
Keith OHara |
Subject: |
Re: Syntax change proposal: |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
> >>>> One really ugly problem is interpreting things like "4.". Looks like a
> >>>> duration, but then we have
> >>>> input/regression/dynamics-broken-hairpin.ly: line-width = 4.\cm
The parser chooses among (too) many different modes ("start conditions")
telling the lexer what kind of input to expect in the current context.
Floating-point numbers and note-durations appear in rather different
situations. If both are valid in the same lexer modes, then maybe you can
adjust the modes toward a smarter design.
> Well, let's see what the parser currently delivers in INITIAL mode.
>
> . character .
> -. REAL 0.0
> -.0 REAL -0.0
> -0.0 character - followed by 0.0
>
> The semantics of -., for example, were introduced in 2.15.9 with
> commit da949cdcede0ffb559e9e5e2adbae2088ba1f6d6
I needed to interpret "\layout {indent = -.\mm}" without backing up in
order to obey the instructions for changing lexer.ll while fixing issue 804.
I tested both interpretations, "staccato" or "0.0" (should have been -0.0)
http://codereview.appspot.com/4871041/diff2/3001:8001/lily/lexer.ll
At the time, I did not foresee staccatos being valid in a \layout block.
If you expect to restrict REAL to -?[0-9]+(\.[0.9]+)? then I suggest you
switch back to interpreting \layout {indent = -.\mm } as a staccato before
the next stable release, or raise a bug and I'll do so.
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, (continued)
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Benkő Pál, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:,
Keith OHara <=
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/25
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Keith OHara, 2012/07/25
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/25
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/25
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Keith OHara, 2012/07/25
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/26
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Keith OHara, 2012/07/26
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/26
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/26
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/26