Re: Use a hash table for the lexer keywords (issue 549920043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2020/04/30 07:42:16, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/04/27 11:58:11, dak wrote:
> > Tracker issue: 5946
(https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5946/)
> > Rietveld issue: 577840053 (https://codereview.appspot.com/577840053)
> > Issue description:
> >   Use Scheme_hash_table for keyword handling
> 
> We should probably decide between these two approaches, we likely
can't do both.
> I see the advantage of using SCM values for everything, but I'm not
familiar
> with the code.

I think it makes more sense here not to introduce new data types for a
job that is inherent to Scheme's operation.  Having both patches on
countdown at the same time obviously does not make sense: if discussion
is required (Han-Wen?), it would make sense to stop both until this is
resolved.

An independent component is the removal of ly:lexer-keywords .  There is
no indication that it ever has been used; it is cheap to provide with my
version.  However, revisiting its code I also see that it takes a lexer
as an argument.  My patch, like Han-Wen's, stops lexers from having
their individual keytable (an implementation detail that was never used
for any purpose).  So even if the function were retained, letting it
take an argument, while making for backwards compatibility, does not
appear to make sense.  This could be addressed in a separate
patch/issue.  Or it could be removed in a separate patch/issue.

One possible use for it would be using LilyPond itself for generating
syntax highlighting for editors.  The current solutions rather extract
stuff from the source I seem to remember.

https://codereview.appspot.com/549920043/