[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Nicolas Sceaux
Subject: Re: What's the deal with the module system?
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:29:26 +0100

2009/11/24 David Kastrup <address@hidden>

>   myInclude =
>   #(define-music-function (parser location file) (string?)
>      #{ \include $file #}
>      (make-music 'void #t))
>   \myInclude ""
>   \markup \foo

Please ignore this case, it's broken. What I had in mind a bit more complex, and probably does not really matter.

The two important points to keep in mind are:

1) user defined commands shall not pollute the internal modules
When e.g. redefines a builtin command, it shall not change the behavior of other file compilation:
shall give the same result as:
Corollary: a command defined in, shall not be accessible from in the "lilypond" case. No side effect allowed.

2) A user command defined in one included file shall be accessible from another included file.

Nobody will make your patches available on retvield for you, and it's not a matter of fighting, but of reading git-cl README.
Using retvield makes your patches both easier to read and to comment. This is the current policy on this project, please conform. Yesterday, I anticipated changes that were yet to come (the unification of both macro), that's why my comments where out of the point of your patch. I feel that publishing your previous patch on retvield as expected here, by giving a clearer picture, would have avoided this situation. Your patch was fine.


reply via email to

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