Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> writes: > I think it's exercises like that that help strengthen the Scheme > bindings and thus lead to more customizability/extensibility. > > > In this case, I disagree. The function in question is used in 2 places > in the C++ code, neither of which is a good candidate for > customization. The only argument for porting this function in the > first place is that it happened to live in the same file as some other > stuff (which _did_ make sense to port). That doesn't sound like a very > good argument to me.
To me it sounds like a Scheme interface to Pointer_group_interface::find_grob is needed here. I think being able to move the _entire_ chunk of functionality to Scheme makes _excellent_ sense since it means we arrive at a piece of functionality that can serve as a template for _user_ written functionality without requiring recompilation. A chunk of Scheme code with "just" one or two semi-trivial C++ functions required to complete it is useless for that purpose. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
