[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:32:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
David Nalesnik <address@hidden> writes:
> David,
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Uh, convertrules.py converts interval-translate to coord-translate
> so
> where is the actual problem?
>
>
>
> Certainly coord-translate is the natural fix (thank you!), but when I
> run convert-ly and the snippet is updated to 2.14.0, this replacement
> isn't made. I looked and didn't find a rule for it in convertrules.py
> for 2.14.2.
fc335d9e python/convertrules.py (Neil Puttock 2011-08-18 00:01:32 +0100
2953) @rule ((2, 13, 27),
fc335d9e python/convertrules.py (Neil Puttock 2011-08-18 00:01:32 +0100
2954) ("interval-translate -> coord-translate"))
fc335d9e python/convertrules.py (Neil Puttock 2011-08-18 00:01:32 +0100
2955) def conv (str):
fc335d9e python/convertrules.py (Neil Puttock 2011-08-18 00:01:32 +0100
2956) str = re.sub ('interval-translate', 'coord-translate', str)
fc335d9e python/convertrules.py (Neil Puttock 2011-08-18 00:01:32 +0100
2957) return str
fc335d9e python/convertrules.py (Neil Puttock 2011-08-18 00:01:32 +0100
2958)
Apparently added as a rule in 2.15.9. Is there a reason you are not
using the _current_ convert-ly to do the conversion? It is not to be
expected that old versions do a better job than current versions at
converting old versions.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, (continued)
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Carl Sorensen, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Phil Holmes, 2012/02/20