Re: Abstract Grob property storage into Mutable_properties. (issue 561640043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh#newcode31
lily/include/mutable-properties.hh:31: class Iterator {
On 2020/04/13 17:22:52, hanwenn wrote:
> On 2020/04/13 17:15:19, Dan Eble wrote:
> > This is useful, but instead of choosing your own method names, why
not give it
> > an interface consistent with standard iterators (where the semantics
match)?
> > 
> > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/InputIterator
> > 
> > I'd leave out the key() and value() methods and let it dealing with
just a
> > generic list of SCM values.
> > 
> > If you implemented enough of the iterator interface, and a class to
wrap the
> raw
> > SCM list into an object addressable with begin() and end(), I think
you would
> be
> > able to write range-for statements something like this:
> > 
> > for (SCM assoc : ly_list(my_alist))
> >   {
> >     SCM key = scm_car(assoc);
> >     SCM val = scm_cdr(assoc);
> >     ...;
> >   }
> > 
> > If you're not interested in doing this, I might try it myself.
> 
> By structuring it like this, you enforce the implementation to store
the
> key/value as SCM cells, which is exactly what we want to get away
from.

I don't see that there is a plan to get away from the value being an SCM
cell, just the key (at least explicitly).  Am I overlooking something?

https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/