[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fixes NoteColumn vs SpanBar collisions. (issue 5323062)

From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Fixes NoteColumn vs SpanBar collisions. (issue 5323062)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 06:44:54 -0700

On Nov 4, 2011, at 1:02 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> "address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 11:39 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>>> File lily/ (right):
>>> lily/ vector<Grob *> pures_;
>>> This takes the lilypond-jargon 'pure' even further from its original
>>> inspiration (a pure function that does not depend on nor change program
>>> state).
>>> What is a 'pure' when used as a noun?
>> Grobs that are pure relevant.  I'll use "pure_relevants_" instead.
> Veto.  "pure" sounds like inside jargon which one will tend to look up
> in the internals guide or wherever else one can expect to (and should!)
> find it.  Lilypond "pure" apparently differs from common-sense "pure",
> but seems to roughly mean "an upper bound established without looking at
> line break decisions".  While there _should_ be a word list of commonly
> used terms in our docs, one can figure that out, somewhat painfully,
> after looking at enough code.  The grammatical barrier of nouning a verb
> or verbing a noun is tiny in comparison.
> "pure relevant" is gibberish.  It again uses a Lilypond-specific "pure",
> but tacks on another common-use word in a meaning not usually employed.
> I have absolutely no idea what "grobs that are pure relevant" is
> supposed to mean.  Not the fuzziest.


Pure relevant (and pure-relevant) is used several places in the code (check out, define-grobs.scm,  Are you 
suggesting that in a separate patch this nomenclature be rethought?  If so, I 
think it's worth it to post a separate patch doing this.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]