[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: make calc-blot from bar-line.scm public (issue 299250044 by address@
Re: make calc-blot from bar-line.scm public (issue 299250044 by address@hidden)
Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:39:35 -0700
On 2016/06/05 17:27:15, thomasmorley651 wrote:
I expected this one to be a real nobrainer...
Well, sorry for that.
On 2016/06/05 15:51:25, dak wrote:
> File scm/bar-line.scm (right):
> scm/bar-line.scm:30: (define-public (calc-blot thickness extent
> For a public function, the name is awful. When made public, the
> be related to the functionality of the function from a general
> than its function within this file only.
Understood. Right now I don't have a good idea for the naming, though.
At least one which would be short enough.
bar-line::calc-blot would likely already fit the bill.
> Also I don't actually see how the "commit message" relates to making
> "To facilitate defining custom-bar-lines using ly:round-filled-box"
> Huh? You mean, instead of having to use ly:round-filled-box
> ly:round-filled-box should already be available anyway. Or
Ok, the message _is_ awful.
I wanted to express:
If a user copies p.e. `make-simple-bar-line' in order to do some minor
modifications to fit his personal needs, he will not also need to c/p
`calc-blot`, although it is used to determine the blot which is
consumed by the
there used ly:round-filled-box-procedure.
Is it used only there? Should its define just be moved inside of the
function? Then you formally would not "also need to c/p calc-blot"
because it would already be copied from inside.
I'll set it to need-work on the tracker for now, so that James doesn't
At any rate: are the arguments for calc-blot such that it's only
conceivably useful inside of bar-lines? If not, a better name would be
desirable. If so, try fudging "bar-line" into its name.