On 2020/04/30 07:42:16, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/04/27 11:58:11, dak wrote: > > Tracker issue: 5946 (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5946/) > > Rietveld issue: 577840053 (https://codereview.appspot.com/577840053) > > Issue description: > > Use Scheme_hash_table for keyword handling > > We should probably decide between these two approaches, we likely can't do both. > I see the advantage of using SCM values for everything, but I'm not familiar > with the code.
I think it makes more sense here not to introduce new data types for a job that is inherent to Scheme's operation. Having both patches on countdown at the same time obviously does not make sense: if discussion is required (Han-Wen?), it would make sense to stop both until this is resolved. An independent component is the removal of ly:lexer-keywords . There is no indication that it ever has been used; it is cheap to provide with my version. However, revisiting its code I also see that it takes a lexer as an argument. My patch, like Han-Wen's, stops lexers from having their individual keytable (an implementation detail that was never used for any purpose). So even if the function were retained, letting it take an argument, while making for backwards compatibility, does not appear to make sense. This could be addressed in a separate patch/issue. Or it could be removed in a separate patch/issue. One possible use for it would be using LilyPond itself for generating syntax highlighting for editors. The current solutions rather extract stuff from the source I seem to remember. https://codereview.appspot.com/549920043/