Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: not-so-ancient flags

[Neil Puttock]

2008/8/21 Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden>:

> All flags are now done in scheme, so you have the full functionality available
> for your own flag styles. You can draw your complete own flags
> (think "hand-written style"....) or modify existing styles (like my
> inverted-flag, which can be useful for tutorials on how not to write
> notes ;-) ).

Awesome work, Reinhold. :)

> I have only three small points/questions:

> 3) In define-grob-properties.scm, the type of flag-style is set to symbol?,
> which is not correct for functions. However, procedure? is also not correct
> if we want to keep allowing symbols like 'no-flag or 'mensural. I couldn't
> find the correct predicate to allow both symbols and procedures.
> Lilypond runs just fine and produces correct output, but when running the
> regression tests, the file prints out several warnings about a wrong property
> type...

You could follow the example set in C++.scm and create a new one,

(define-public (procedure-or-symbol? x)
  (or (procedure? x) (symbol? x)))

though judging by the comments for 'bracket-visibility (which is
boolean-or-symbol?), hybrid types like this are frowned upon.

Regards,
Neil