Re: What's the deal with the module system?

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Undocumented code is not maintainable.  Throwing it out is a matter of
>> sanity if it can't get documented, and it apparently can't.  It
>> apparently can't even get questioned or discussed.
>
> We cannot throw out code if that makes LilyPond stop working.  Sorry.
>
>> How do you suppose that getting new core developers is going to work?
>
> I don't know; people like Joe Neeman just show up one day with a large
> patch that works, is well-thought out, and solves new problems, and
> they do it without sending endless mail.

I suppose you told him to put his patch on Rietveld and let it rot
there.

> It has certainly never worked the way you are attempting right now.

So the way is to just show up one day with a large patch that works and
is well-thought out.  Which _is_, by the way, pretty much the state of
the patch I delivered on Rietveld for unifying the syntax of
make-builtin-markup-command and make-markup-command (if you simply omit
the last change where I threw out the module stuff altogether, by the
way following _your_ suggestion, and which works inexplicably on my
system but not those of others, maybe because of different g++/guile
versions, but nobody bothers telling me theirs, so I don't know).  But
those people who would be qualified to review it can't be bothered.

Yes, it does not work the way I am attempting right now.  You are quite
right about that.

Very right.

But it is the way _you_ and Nicolas told me I should use.

Is this still about code and procedures or about my ugly face?

All the best,

-- 
David Kastrup