Re: Further problems with makeLSR

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Further problems with makeLSR
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
>>> To: <address@hidden>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Further problems with makeLSR
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh rats.  The problem would be that any changed snippets need to be
>>>> copied to snippets/new (after editing their headers appropriately) in
>>>> order not to be overwritten by LSR.
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, after the latest change this concerns a sizable number
>>>> of snippets.  We need to get this done before the next LSR update.
>>>> Anybody up for it?
>>>
>>> I think that _might_ not be necessary.  If it's possible to update
>>> them with a convert-ly rule, they should not need adding to
>>> snippets/new.
>>
>> Obviously that does not help since all of the affected snippets were
>> actually changed with convert-ly.
>
> Is that rule definitely in master?

It definitely is.  Iff the convert-ly target is 2.17.6 or greater, the
rule should be triggered.

> MakeLSR runs convert-ly and therefore should come up with the same
> change that you produced.

So we need to figure out why it doesn't.  Does it run the wrong version
of convert-ly?

>>> Otherwise, we'll end up with too many snippets in /new to be
>>> comfortable with.
>>
>> Where does the comfort level derive from?
>
> Human beings have to move all the snippets from snippets/new once they
> work with the current version of the LSR.  A few 10s is achievable.
> More than that risks no-one having the incentive to do the drudge.

But they won't work with versions of the LSR previous to 2.17.6.

>>> Alternatively - does the older syntax still work?
>>
>> _Some_ of the older syntax continues to work (namely that for
>> \override/\revert).
>>
>> But I don't see that presenting an inconsistent view would make any
>> sense here.
>
> I don't see why the snippets need consistency.

I do.  We don't want to confuse users by presenting two different
versions of syntax.

-- 
David Kastrup