In the old parser* one could throw in a comma before xin ala:

(look away now if you're squeamish...)

opcode whatever, k, kk
k1, k2, xin   ;<---note the comma!!!!

without error.

Syntactically it seems wrong, and sure enough the new parser reports
an error. The question is should the new parser behave just like the
old one in EVERY way in order to keep backward compatibility, or is
this just crazy?


*tested with Csound 5.13 (doubles) Ubuntu..


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

While it i sprobably not difficult to fix this, it seems to me that this
is not the published syntax and that it worked was a bug -- shoiuld we
restore the crashes for missing commas?

But I am open to the weighted majority

==John
> In the old parser* one could throw in a comma before xin ala:
>
> (look away now if you're squeamish...)
>
> opcode whatever, k, kk
> k1, k2, xin   ;<---note the comma!!!!
>
> without error.
>
> Syntactically it seems wrong, and sure enough the new parser reports
> an error. The question is should the new parser behave just like the
> old one in EVERY way in order to keep backward compatibility, or is
> this just crazy?
>
>
> *tested with Csound 5.13 (doubles) Ubuntu..
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
>
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I think the old parser should be fixed so that it causes an error.
It's clearly a bug?

On 7 November 2011 16:44,   wrote:
> While it i sprobably not difficult to fix this, it seems to me that this
> is not the published syntax and that it worked was a bug -- shoiuld we
> restore the crashes for missing commas?
>
> But I am open to the weighted majority
>
> ==John
>> In the old parser* one could throw in a comma before xin ala:
>>
>> (look away now if you're squeamish...)
>>
>> opcode whatever, k, kk
>> k1, k2, xin   ;<---note the comma!!!!
>>
>> without error.
>>
>> Syntactically it seems wrong, and sure enough the new parser reports
>> an error. The question is should the new parser behave just like the
>> old one in EVERY way in order to keep backward compatibility, or is
>> this just crazy?
>>
>>
>> *tested with Csound 5.13 (doubles) Ubuntu..
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I think we should keep to published syntax whenever possible.

Victor
On 7 Nov 2011, at 16:44, jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:

> While it i sprobably not difficult to fix this, it seems to me that  
> this
> is not the published syntax and that it worked was a bug -- shoiuld we
> restore the crashes for missing commas?
>
> But I am open to the weighted majority
>
> ==John
>> In the old parser* one could throw in a comma before xin ala:
>>
>> (look away now if you're squeamish...)
>>
>> opcode whatever, k, kk
>> k1, k2, xin   ;<---note the comma!!!!
>>
>> without error.
>>
>> Syntactically it seems wrong, and sure enough the new parser reports
>> an error. The question is should the new parser behave just like the
>> old one in EVERY way in order to keep backward compatibility, or is
>> this just crazy?
>>
>>
>> *tested with Csound 5.13 (doubles) Ubuntu..
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/? 
>> group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"
>

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie





Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I'm not sure we should spend time with the old parser at this point.  
Unless it's actually preventing people from work, we should just leave  
it. Basically, if the bug is benign, leave it.

Victor
On 7 Nov 2011, at 16:57, Rory Walsh wrote:

> I think the old parser should be fixed so that it causes an error.
> It's clearly a bug?
>
> On 7 November 2011 16:44,   wrote:
>> While it i sprobably not difficult to fix this, it seems to me that  
>> this
>> is not the published syntax and that it worked was a bug -- shoiuld  
>> we
>> restore the crashes for missing commas?
>>
>> But I am open to the weighted majority
>>
>> ==John
>>> In the old parser* one could throw in a comma before xin ala:
>>>
>>> (look away now if you're squeamish...)
>>>
>>> opcode whatever, k, kk
>>> k1, k2, xin   ;<---note the comma!!!!
>>>
>>> without error.
>>>
>>> Syntactically it seems wrong, and sure enough the new parser reports
>>> an error. The question is should the new parser behave just like the
>>> old one in EVERY way in order to keep backward compatibility, or is
>>> this just crazy?
>>>
>>>
>>> *tested with Csound 5.13 (doubles) Ubuntu..
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/? 
>> group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"
>

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie





Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"