[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: penalty -> permission patch
From: |
Joe Neeman |
Subject: |
Re: penalty -> permission patch |
Date: |
Fri, 5 May 2006 22:21:52 +1000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.3 |
On Fri, 5 May 2006 18:43, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Joe Neeman wrote:
> > First of all, instead of penalty, breakable and page-penalty, we now
> > have: break-penalty, break-permission
> > page-break-penalty, page-break-permission
> > page-turn-penalty, page-turn-permission
>
> sounds good.
>
> > where XXX-permission can be 'allow, 'force or 'forbid.
>
> can you drop the 'allow ? I think it's the proper default, so undefined
> ( SCM_EOL or rather, !scm_is_symbol() ) just means allow.
I see your point about only needing 2 symbols, but shouldn't the default be
forbid? Because break-permission replaces breakable, so forbid corresponds to
the previous default of #f if unset.
- penalty -> permission patch, Joe Neeman, 2006/05/05
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/05/05
- Re: penalty -> permission patch,
Joe Neeman <=
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Joe Neeman, 2006/05/06
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/05/06
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Joe Neeman, 2006/05/06
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/05/06
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Joe Neeman, 2006/05/07
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/05/07
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Joe Neeman, 2006/05/08
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/05/08
- Re: penalty -> permission patch, Joe Neeman, 2006/05/08