Re: Just some short feedback

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/27/15 3:09 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

>As things currently stand, I suspect that the current mechanism for
>creating Scheme engravers with their own variables (namely providing a
>function creating an engraver description) does not have likable
>performance characteristics and, more importantly, does not really work
>reasonably at all with regard to registering Scheme engravers like C++
>engravers so that they can be called by name and documented in the same
>manner.

I'm totally supportive of developing a way to register Scheme engravers so
they can be documented and be full members of the LilyPond family.

>
>I'll probably come up with something GOOPS-related eventually and the
>closure mechanism for creating Scheme engravers will be deprecated.
>
>At any rate, I am starting over _again_ but I think that I am now at the
>stage where my plan of execution is nicely streamlined and "Listeners"
>from both C++ and Scheme level (as well as their creation from the
>bowels of the respective engraver types) are quite straightforward to
>deploy and debug and don't rely on all the C level macro hackery.

That sounds like a great thing.  Like so much of your work, it makes a
huge difference in maintainability and future development.  Maybe not so
much difference in the current function (perhaps none at all), but a huge
difference in going forward.  We are so fortunate to have you working on
this kind of thing.

>
>So in short, I've been tending the most important resource a good
>programmer should have in his possession: the wastebasket.  And I expect
>people to ultimately be glad about all the code I have thrown away once
>I get to throwing away the current code we work with.

I'm looking forward to having you throw away some code and replace it with
much more easily-maintained and -extended code.

Thanks for your hard work!

Carl