[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions |
Date: |
Sat, 1 Sep 2012 16:22:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 12:07:07PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> This is also the danger of having broad discussions over syntax.
...
> on the basis of how "intuitive" it looks. See also
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality
Yes, that was the whole reason why I wanted to reserve this list
for discussions about serious proposals, and let the majority of
the bike-shedding happen off-list during the process of creating
serious, well-researched proposals.
> For an illustrative example
> of what can go wrong with lots of well-intentioned decisions are
> stacked together, have a look at the following video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yZHbh396rc
Yes, that video is hillarious.
> In the end, each syntax is a compromise between what you allow for
> expressivity, and how much you disallow to stop the user from shooting
> himself in the foot. If you decide to "reinvent" the syntax, you are
> only moving about the compromise, closing off one nest of rats in
> exchange for opening a can of worms.
I agree with that. The question is, what happens next? I see
three options, but perhaps you see a different "obvious" proposal.
1. declare the 2.16.0 syntax absolutely frozen (possibly with the
exception of property names and scheme). Reject absolutely all
patches to lily/parser.yy
2. have a serious and respectful discussion on lilypond-devel
about these compromises and whether we think it is appropriate to
select a different compromise for some portion(s) of the syntax
given what we've seen from the past 15 years of LilyPond.
3. have a serious and respectful discussion on a different list,
and when those discussions reach a firm proposal, bring that
proposal to lilypond-devel for a serious and respectful discussion
about the well-researched proposal.
So far I don't feel that the discussion has been very fruitful.
- Graham
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, (continued)
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Keith OHara, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/01
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Trevor Daniels, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Janek WarchoĊ, 2012/09/01
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Graham Percival, 2012/09/02
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Keith OHara, 2012/09/02
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/02
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/01
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Marc Hohl, 2012/09/01
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2012/09/02