Re: Uses only unpure-pure containers to articulate unpure-pure relationships. (issue 7377046)

[address@hidden]

On 28 févr. 2013, at 06:48, address@hidden wrote:

> On 2013/02/27 23:00:48, mike7 wrote:
>> On 27 févr. 2013, at 19:06, mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> 
>> >
>> >
> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly
>> > File input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly (right):
>> >
>> >
> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly#newcode129
>> > input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly:129:
>> > side-position-interface::y-aligned-side)
>> > I really don't understand why you ask on the developer list about
>> > gratuitous prefix changes because of a different implementation
> language
>> > when you propose such changes right afterwards.
>> >
> 
>> In my e-mail, I stated:
>> "I'd prefer if all native Scheme functions did not have the ly: prefix
> - it
>> helps to know what things are where."
> 
> So why do you ask when you ignore the answer?
> 
>> side-position-interface::y-aligned-side above is a native Scheme
> function that
>> does not have the ly: prefix.
> 
> You remove the prefix in this patch set.

Sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean.
ly:side-position-interface::y-aligned-side is defined in 
side-position-interface.cc
side-position-interface::y-aligned-side is defined in output-lib.scm
The function defined in C++ has the ly: prefix, whereas the function defined in 
Scheme doesn't.

> 
>> > https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob.cc
>> > File lily/grob.cc (right):
>> >
>> >
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob.cc#newcode866
>> > lily/grob.cc:866: if (to_boolean (scm_object_property
>> > (me->get_property_data ("stencil"), ly_symbol2scm ("ly:stencil?"))))
>> > Where is this object property being set?
> 
>> In define-grobs.scm.
> 
> I've looked very thoroughly without success.  I can't find a setting
> of the ly:stencil? object property in your patch set, and I can't find
> it in the current code base, either.
> 
> Care for a line number?

Ah, OK, I misunderstood your question.
In your reasking it, I now see (a) exactly what you mean; and (b) that I 
screwed up this test.  I fixed the test and posted a new patch set.

Cheers,
MS