lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Define Scheme markups using define-public (issue 577720043 by addres


From: dak
Subject: Re: Define Scheme markups using define-public (issue 577720043 by address@hidden)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 04:22:24 -0700

On 2020/04/12 10:59:21, hanwenn wrote:
> On 2020/03/30 12:20:17, dak wrote:
> > > > Ugly and a maintenance burden since the code is used twice. 
Anything
> > > > wrong with my proposal?
> > > 
> > > I didn't understand your proposal.
> > > 
> > > > It does not have duplicate code, makes
> > > > define-markup-command compilable (while requiring its toplevel
use) and
> > > > provides a way of doing the same consistently for
module-specific rather
> > > > than toplevel use.
> > > >
> > > > It sacrifices, like your proposal, non-toplevel-performance for
the sake
> > > > of compilability in Guilev2.  It's just that what the parser
then uses
> > > > is in a form that could also be used in a reasonably natural
manner from
> > > > Scheme.
> > > >
> > > > Should I write up a patch doing that?
> > > 
> > > Yes please.
> > > 
> > 
> > Working on it.  
> 
> Any update?

Sorry, got lost among other stuff.  I have something working in a branch
which I'll rebase and upload presently.  It illustrates the point I was
trying to make though I'll have to admit that this looked more
worthwhile "on paper" so far: I am still not all too clear about how
this would help with the byte compilation situation even though it
cleans up the current situation.  Also, making the call of
(current-module) explicit may help in finding a macro invocation that
delays the actual call until it can actually work.

Also it is more of a sketch, and since the sketch was about
define-markup-command, it starts out reverting your union of
define-markup-command and define-markup-command-list.  Since there is
not much of a point in having different implementations for either, this
is of course something that ultimately needs addressing.

So in short, it's not ready for submission in the current form, but it
certainly spells out what I tried expressing in the above comment.  Even
though I am still fuzzy about whether it will be more helpful in finding
a solution for the byte compilation.

https://codereview.appspot.com/577720043/



reply via email to

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