>> From: Scott Ballantyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The model evolved guided by our attempts to improve the implementation
>> > of lily. There is no design, other than trying to be `concise,
>> > elegant, flexible'
>> >
>>
>> ... It looks like lexical scoping rather
>> than dynamic binding is the order of the day in lilypond, and I wonder
>> if over all, from the user perspective, if it wouldn't be better ---
>> simpler if a different binding method were used. Perhaps message
>> passing would improve the situation.
I have read over what you (Scott) wrote several times and have tried
unsuccessfully to see a situation where dynamic scoping would be better
(in *any* way) to lexical scoping. I can accept this as a shortcoming
of my own imagination so I ask, "Can you elaborate on places where
you think dynamic scoping would be better?" Also, can you elaborate
on where you think a message passing interface would work better (presumbably
better than the current "inheritance" method (sometimes simply called
"grouping" in other context)?
David
_______________________________________________
Gnu-music-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-music-discuss
