Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:09 AM

> ** Summary
> 
> Let’s decide whether to try to stabilize the syntax or not.

We /should/ try to stabilize the syntax, but trying to do this
at exactly the time when David is straightening out the
parser seems a bad idea.  As yet we do not know where
the parser changes may lead eventually.

> ** Stability or not?
> 
> Stabilizing a language is a tricky process. If you do it too
> early, then you’re stuck with whatever mistakes or poor design
> decisions.

Exactly.  We should wait until David's parser changes
settle out.

> 2. Define a subset of input as being stable for the 3.x branch.
>     We add regression tests for that subset of notation and
>     forbid running convert-ly on those files. At the moment, I
>     imagine that the subset would consist of at most Notation
>     sections 1.1 Pitches, 1.2 Rhythms, and the overall file
>     organization; nothing else.  Changes to input other than that
>     subset are fine. 

I'd be happy to see a start being made on this now, in spite
of my comments above, but we must delay the actual
release of the definitive syntax-stable version until we have
confidence the parser changes have stabilized.  The task David
has set himself is difficult enough without his being hamstrung
by a premature release imposing further constraints on the
parser.  Predicting the effect those constraints might have
on the parser is pretty well impossible.

Trevor