Pushed as 69622b49b7a5a9c992e36ef11ba60c1fdd3c34b6.
I made the regtest more unique to unpure-pure-closures so that people
reading it don't mistake it for the same thing as extra-spacing-height.
Have fun with these!
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/
_
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/29001/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc
File lily/unpure-pure-container.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/29001/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc#newcode35
lily/unpure-pure-container.cc:35: LY_ASSERT_TYPE
(is_unpure_pure_container, smob, 1)
On Sep 1, 2011, at 10:39 AM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/29001/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc
> File lily/unpure-pure-container.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/29001/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc#newcode35
> lily/unpure-pure
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/29001/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc
File lily/unpure-pure-container.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/29001/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc#newcode35
lily/unpure-pure-container.cc:35: LY_ASSERT_TYPE
(is_unpure_pure_container, smob, 1)
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:41 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/19001/lily/system.cc
> File lily/system.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/19001/lily/system.cc#newcode773
> lily/system.cc:773: || is_unpure_pure_container
> (elts[i]-
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:37 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2011/08/20 20:21:30, mikesol_ufl.edu wrote:
>
>> I'll try to think of something better...if you have any suggestions in
> the
>> meantime, they're certainly welcome!
>
> Something using a stencil override?
>
The problem is that sten
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/19001/lily/system.cc
File lily/system.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/19001/lily/system.cc#newcode773
lily/system.cc:773: || is_unpure_pure_container
(elts[i]->get_property_data ("Y-extent"
move this to pure-relevant?
http://
On 2011/08/20 20:21:30, mikesol_ufl.edu wrote:
I'll try to think of something better...if you have any suggestions in
the
meantime, they're certainly welcome!
Something using a stencil override?
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/9001/lily/pure-closure.cc#newcode68
> lily/pure-
passes make and reg tests
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Aug 20, 2011, at 12:39 AM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/9001/input/regression/pure-closure.ly
> File input/regression/pure-closure.ly (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/9001/input/regression/pure-closure.ly#newcode18
> input/r
On Aug 20, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 18 August 2011 13:44, Mike Solomon wrote:
>
>> What about pure-container ?
>
unpure-pure-container ?
Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mail
On 18 August 2011 13:44, Mike Solomon wrote:
> What about pure-container ?
It's all right, I suppose... but what about the unpure part? After
all, the container's not just about the pure callback.
Cheers,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypon
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/9001/input/regression/pure-closure.ly
File input/regression/pure-closure.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/diff/9001/input/regression/pure-closure.ly#newcode18
input/regression/pure-closure.ly:18: #(ly:make-pure-closure
ly:stem::height '
On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:31 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I have reservations about the naming, since you're basically creating a
> smob which acts as a container for a pair of callbacks; it doesn't work
> like a simple-closure in that you can evaluate the closure and get
> something
On Aug 18, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Thursday, 18. August 2011, 11:21:59 schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
>> This is a more extensible way to deal with pure properties. I'd like
>> this patch to be the first step, with the second step being rewriting
>> define-grob-properties.scm
Hi Mike,
I have reservations about the naming, since you're basically creating a
smob which acts as a container for a pair of callbacks; it doesn't work
like a simple-closure in that you can evaluate the closure and get
something useful back.
Cheers,
Neil
http://codereview.appspot.com/4894052/
On 2011/08/18 11:06:57, reinhold_kainhofer.com wrote:
Wow, that would be VERY user-unfriendly. Just imagine explaining that
to
someone on -user...
(or even to the average lilypond developer... I still haven't
understood what
closures are).
I agree, though I do like the idea in principle si
Am Thursday, 18. August 2011, 11:21:59 schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
> This is a more extensible way to deal with pure properties. I'd like
> this patch to be the first step, with the second step being rewriting
> define-grob-properties.scm such that it uses pure closures as much as
> possible. First
Reviewers: ,
Message:
This is a more extensible way to deal with pure properties. I'd like
this patch to be the first step, with the second step being rewriting
define-grob-properties.scm such that it uses pure closures as much as
possible. First, create a procedure:
#(define-public (pure-wrap
19 matches
Mail list logo
