On 4/27/15 3:09 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>As things currently stand, I suspect that the current mechanism for >creating Scheme engravers with their own variables (namely providing a >function creating an engraver description) does not have likable >performance characteristics and, more importantly, does not really work >reasonably at all with regard to registering Scheme engravers like C++ >engravers so that they can be called by name and documented in the same >manner. I'm totally supportive of developing a way to register Scheme engravers so they can be documented and be full members of the LilyPond family. > >I'll probably come up with something GOOPS-related eventually and the >closure mechanism for creating Scheme engravers will be deprecated. > >At any rate, I am starting over _again_ but I think that I am now at the >stage where my plan of execution is nicely streamlined and "Listeners" >from both C++ and Scheme level (as well as their creation from the >bowels of the respective engraver types) are quite straightforward to >deploy and debug and don't rely on all the C level macro hackery. That sounds like a great thing. Like so much of your work, it makes a huge difference in maintainability and future development. Maybe not so much difference in the current function (perhaps none at all), but a huge difference in going forward. We are so fortunate to have you working on this kind of thing. > >So in short, I've been tending the most important resource a good >programmer should have in his possession: the wastebasket. And I expect >people to ultimately be glad about all the code I have thrown away once >I get to throwing away the current code we work with. I'm looking forward to having you throw away some code and replace it with much more easily-maintained and -extended code. Thanks for your hard work! Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
