PATCHES - Countdown to September 5
Here is the current countdown report. The next countdown will begin on September 5th. A list of all merge requests can be found here: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests?sort=label_priority Push: No patches in Push at this time. Countdown: !1593 Add 'outsidecomma and 'upbow breath mark types - Dan Eble https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1593 !1592 Remove general_pushpop_property (dead code) - Dan Eble https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1592 Review: !1597 Define from_scm, to_scm and is_scm on std::string - Jean Abou Samra https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1597 !1596 doc: reference fixes and formatting - Werner Lemberg https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1596 !1594 musicxml2ly: use \caesura command - Dan Eble https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1594 !1591 Enforce at most one instance of a translator type per context - Jean Abou Samra https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1591 !1590 Define and use ly_list - Jean Abou Samra https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1590 !1588 Add list of bar lines in an NR appendix (redux) - Jean Abou Samra https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1588 !1587 In MIDI, render lyric underties using Unicode undertie U+203F - Jean Abou Samra https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1587 !1544 Misc. minor output-distance cleanups - Jean Abou Samra https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1544 New: No patches in New at this time. Waiting: !1578 New margins by default - Martín Rincón Botero https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1578 Cheers, Colin
Re: A more automated LY_DEFINE?
On Sep 2, 2022, at 04:42, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> Does C++ provide tools for making this simpler? I'm thinking that something
> like
>
> LY_DEFINE (ly_grob_relative_coordinate, ..., (Grob *g, Grob *refp, Axis a),
> ...)
> {
> ...
> return ret;
> }
>
> would be equivalent to
>
> LY_DEFINE (ly_grob_relative_coordinate, ..., (SCM g_scm, SCM refp_scm, SCM
> axis_scm), ...)
> {
> auto *const g = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Grob, g_scm, 1);
> auto *const refp = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Grob, refp_scm, 2);
> LY_ASSERT_TYPE (is_scm, axis_scm, 3);
> Axis a = from_scm (axis_scm);
> ...
> return to_scm (ret);
> }
This has been on my wish list for a while, which is why it is currently
possible to pass overloaded functions to macros such as LY_DEFINE, and
hand-code the function as a SCM function wrapping another function. I suspect
that David had similar thoughts when he created from_scm() and to_scm().
> I might be willing to spend time on it in the future, although not very soon.
>
> If it is not feasible, being told it before I try could save me time. I'm
> not yet very familiar with C++ templating techniques.
It's hard to give any assurance about complicated problems one doesn't do every
day. I can confidently predict that the experience will involve an instance of
trying something obvious that doesn't work and learning that it requires a more
recent version of C++.
I don't want to discourage you, but this is a good thing to attempt when you're
prepared for a steep learning curve and possible failure.
—
Dan
Re: A more automated LY_DEFINE?
Le 02/09/2022 à 13:17, Dan Eble a écrit :
On Sep 2, 2022, at 04:42, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
Does C++ provide tools for making this simpler? I'm thinking that something like
LY_DEFINE (ly_grob_relative_coordinate, ..., (Grob *g, Grob *refp, Axis a), ...)
{
...
return ret;
}
would be equivalent to
LY_DEFINE (ly_grob_relative_coordinate, ..., (SCM g_scm, SCM refp_scm, SCM
axis_scm), ...)
{
auto *const g = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Grob, g_scm, 1);
auto *const refp = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Grob, refp_scm, 2);
LY_ASSERT_TYPE (is_scm, axis_scm, 3);
Axis a = from_scm (axis_scm);
...
return to_scm (ret);
}
This has been on my wish list for a while, which is why it is currently
possible to pass overloaded functions to macros such as LY_DEFINE, and
hand-code the function as a SCM function wrapping another function. I suspect
that David had similar thoughts when he created from_scm() and to_scm().
I might be willing to spend time on it in the future, although not very soon.
If it is not feasible, being told it before I try could save me time. I'm
not yet very familiar with C++ templating techniques.
It's hard to give any assurance about complicated problems one doesn't do every
day. I can confidently predict that the experience will involve an instance of
trying something obvious that doesn't work and learning that it requires a more
recent version of C++.
I don't want to discourage you, but this is a good thing to attempt when you're
prepared for a steep learning curve and possible failure.
OK, thank you, I have been warned. I'll only attempt it if one day I
feel particularly bold.
Cheers,
Jean
A more automated LY_DEFINE?
Hi,
Right now, the most common pattern for a LY_DEFINE is somewhat repetitive:
LY_DEFINE (ly_name, "ly:name",
req, opt, var, (SCM arg1, SCM arg2, ...),
R"(doc...)")
{
LY_ASSERT_TYPE (is_scm (arg1), 1);
Cpp_type arg1_cpp = from_scm (arg1);
auto *const smob = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Smob_type, arg2, 2);
// process the arguments ...
return to_scm (result);
}
We have this really all over the code base.
Does C++ provide tools for making this simpler? I'm thinking that
something like
LY_DEFINE (ly_grob_relative_coordinate, ..., (Grob *g, Grob *refp, Axis
a), ...)
{
...
return ret;
}
would be equivalent to
LY_DEFINE (ly_grob_relative_coordinate, ..., (SCM g_scm, SCM refp_scm,
SCM axis_scm), ...)
{
auto *const g = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Grob, g_scm, 1);
auto *const refp = LY_ASSERT_SMOB (Grob, refp_scm, 2);
LY_ASSERT_TYPE (is_scm, axis_scm, 3);
Axis a = from_scm (axis_scm);
...
return to_scm (ret);
}
If this is feasible, I might be willing to spend time on it in the future,
although not very soon.
If it is not feasible, being told it before I try could save me time. I'm
not yet very familiar with C++ templating techniques.
Thanks,
Jean
