On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:31 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I have reservations about the naming, since you're basically creating a > smob which acts as a container for a pair of callbacks; it doesn't work > like a simple-closure in that you can evaluate the closure and get > something useful back. > > Cheers, > Neil >
What about pure-container ? > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/1/lily/pure-closure.cc > File lily/pure-closure.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/1/lily/pure-closure.cc#newcode65 > lily/pure-closure.cc:65: 2, 0, 0, (SCM pc), > 1, 0, 0, > > (there's only one arg; looks like you've been cut'n'pasting from > simple-closure.cc :) > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/1/lily/pure-closure.cc#newcode73 > lily/pure-closure.cc:73: 2, 0, 0, (SCM pc), > 1, 0, 0, > Fixed and fixed - thanks! > http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/1/lily/pure-closure.cc#newcode84 > lily/pure-closure.cc:84: scm_display (scm_cdr (s), port); > this only displays the unpure part, and if you change it to show both, > there seems to be a garbage collection problem (probably to do with > using scm_markcdr in init_pure_closure ()); the pure part has been swept > away: > I posted a new patch that should fix this. Many thanks, as always! Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
