Re: Scheme coding style

[Carl Sorensen]

On 5/29/15 1:25 PM, "Simon Albrecht" <address@hidden> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>a while ago I found this document on what appear to be very widely
>accepted standards for formatting scheme code:
><http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-style>. I find it very useful
>and it seems to be altogether uncontroversial while warranting good
>legibility.
>Do we also accept these guidelines in our use of scheme?

Yes, we accept these guidelines.  But outside of .scm files, we don't
enforce them.

Last time I checked, our official standard of Scheme style was "whatever
Emacs creates".

We have a script that gets close in creating approved style, but it never
got officially adopted.


>If yes, we 
>should consider documenting them, or rather, referencing them in our
>docs. This could be
>­ in the usage manual
><http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/general-suggestions>,
>where the corresponding Lilypond coding recommendations are found.

I would be happy with a reference there.

>­ in the scheme tutorial
><http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/extending/scheme-tutorial>,
>but where? Someone who is completely new to scheme will not make much
>use of style instructions.

It seems like a reference in the Scheme tutorial would also be
appropriate. (Perhaps a reference to the usage manual, rather than a
restatement of whatever is in Usage.
 
>­ the Learning Manual would be best for propagating their use, but that
>doesn¹t actually introduce scheme, does it? (thinking aloudŠ)

I don't think we need to propagate their use in .ly  files.  I also think
we should *not* introduce Scheme in the Learning Manual.  Lilypond is hard
enough without the scheme layer.

Thanks,

Carl