On 2019/02/12 16:24:37, Valentin Villenave wrote:
On 2019/02/11 22:02:11, dak wrote:
> Doing a single call of
> make_markup_concat (scm_list_3 (markup1, markup2, markup3));
> does not seem too bad and the export/import is a one-time cost for
all
> prospective uses. I am surprised we don't h
On 2019/02/11 22:02:11, dak wrote:
There is alist->hash-table in scm/lily-library.scm
Which is a similar to ice-9’s alist->hashq-table…
For printing note names, there is note-name->lily-string exported from
scm/define-music-display-methods.scm which, well, actually does use
rassoc.
Yes, I b
v.villen...@gmail.com writes:
> On 2019/02/10 12:23:40, dak wrote:
>> lily/general-scheme.cc:150: LY_DEFINE (ly_rassoc, "ly:rassoc",
>> I am not sure this is wanted (there are also other definitions) since
> it's
>> comparatively slow for large sets. Can you think of a scheme using a
> hashtable
On 2019/02/10 12:23:40, dak wrote:
lily/general-scheme.cc:150: LY_DEFINE (ly_rassoc, "ly:rassoc",
I am not sure this is wanted (there are also other definitions) since
it's
comparatively slow for large sets. Can you think of a scheme using a
hashtable
as cache?
Are you sure it’s worth it?
https://codereview.appspot.com/221710044/diff/60001/lily/general-scheme.cc
File lily/general-scheme.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/221710044/diff/60001/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode150
lily/general-scheme.cc:150: LY_DEFINE (ly_rassoc, "ly:rassoc",
I am not sure this is wanted (ther
