Re: pure simple-closures

2006-10-20 Thread Joe Neeman
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 00:02 +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Joe Neeman schreef: > > Here is an attempt at making simple-closures pure-evaluatable. A > > summary: > > > > 1) move the conversion of non-pure-to-pure callbacks into C++ where it > > is a bit easier to access and generalise it to suppo

lilypond on FreeBSD?

2006-10-20 Thread Ian Stirling
I haven't managed to make Lilypond work on my FreeBSD 6.1 system. The precompiled version gives a runtime error looking for a non existent library. In any case, I prefer to compile from source. 2.9.24 fails to install because this file is missing and a google search for it only finds my reques

Re: pure simple-closures

2006-10-20 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Joe Neeman schreef: Here is an attempt at making simple-closures pure-evaluatable. A summary: 1) move the conversion of non-pure-to-pure callbacks into C++ where it is a bit easier to access and generalise it to support functions other than just grob callbacks. The convention is that if a non-pu

pure simple-closures

2006-10-20 Thread Joe Neeman
Here is an attempt at making simple-closures pure-evaluatable. A summary: 1) move the conversion of non-pure-to-pure callbacks into C++ where it is a bit easier to access and generalise it to support functions other than just grob callbacks. The convention is that if a non-pure function takes (arg

Re: Patch proposal: DocBook support for lilypond-book

2006-10-20 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Bertalan Fodor schreef: Anyone interested? Should I create a patch? Against which version? Any suggestions? Can you also add a relevant section to the manual? Thanks! -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation

Re: Why not set TextScript.Y-offset in define-grobs.scm?

2006-10-20 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Joe Neeman schreef: On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 12:08 +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Joe Neeman schreef: As far as I can tell, whenever a TextScript object is created, it is immediately sent to Side_position_interface::set_axis(Y_AXIS). It seems that it is better to just set Y-offset and side-axis in

Re: Why not set TextScript.Y-offset in define-grobs.scm?

2006-10-20 Thread Joe Neeman
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 12:08 +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Joe Neeman schreef: > > As far as I can tell, whenever a TextScript object is created, it is > > immediately sent to Side_position_interface::set_axis(Y_AXIS). It seems > > that it is better to just set Y-offset and side-axis in > > defin

Re: Why not set TextScript.Y-offset in define-grobs.scm?

2006-10-20 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Joe Neeman schreef: As far as I can tell, whenever a TextScript object is created, it is immediately sent to Side_position_interface::set_axis(Y_AXIS). It seems that it is better to just set Y-offset and side-axis in define-grobs.scm. Is there a reason this is not done? Same thing applies to Scri

Re: Why not set TextScript.Y-offset in define-grobs.scm?

2006-10-20 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Joe Neeman schreef: As far as I can tell, whenever a TextScript object is created, it is immediately sent to Side_position_interface::set_axis(Y_AXIS). It seems that it is better to just set Y-offset and side-axis in define-grobs.scm. Is there a reason this is not done? Same thing applies to Scri

why isn't TextScript.Y-offset set in define-grobs.scm?

2006-10-20 Thread Joe Neeman
I could have sworn I sent this last night, but it isn't in my "sent" folder. Apologies if people get this twice. It seems that every time a TextScript is created, it is sent to Side_position_interface::set_axis (Y_AXIS). Is there a reason that we don't just set Y-offset and side-axis in define-gro