Re: lilypond grammar in the contributor guide

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> We have a dump of the bison grammar in the contributor guide (see
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/lilypond-grammar).
>>
>> Is there any value in keeping this? It complicates the generation, as
>> it is a cross-directory dependency.
>
> Much of LilyPond's language has been offloaded to music functions and
> the parsing of music function arguments uses synthetic tokens and to a
> good degree is directed not as much from the rules but the underlying
> actions.
>
> As an end user tool, it

by which I mean the printed Bison grammar

> reflects far too little of what the input
> language of LilyPond is about.  And it does not contain enough to work
> with when placed, say, in the CG.  While one might want to think about
> whether the responsible scripts could in any useful manner be
> contributed to Bison

by which I mean the GNU project "Bison"

> (after all, Texinfo is the official GNU
> documentation language), for LilyPond itself it does no longer make much
> sense in my opinion.
>
> It

(the printed Bison grammar)

> allows interpreting the output of -ddebug-parser of a binary

by which I mean a LilyPond binary

> corresponding to the version of the NR.  But the complexity of
> LilyPond's grammar is such that I would not expect somebody not working
> with a full checkout-out source to be likely in a capacity of
> interpreting the respective traces of Bison.

Sorry for writing too much between the lines.

-- 
David Kastrup