Re: Yaffut

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 8:51 PM David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > What level of respect should I maintain for the integrity of
>> > flower/include/yaffut.h?  I think it would be nice to limit the
>> > default output of the unit test program to errors + summary, and I
>> > could achieve that either by modifying Yaffut itself or by filtering
>> > the output through a script.
>
> Go wild. There are only 2 (?) small flower lib files that have tests,
> so I don't think this merits much attention.
>
>> My personal opinion for the amount of respect is: none.  I didn't even
>> know it had an existence outside of LilyPond
>> (<http://members.home.nl/rutger.van.beusekom/> shows dead links and a
>> Boost licence but it would be my guess that Han-Wen and Jan have
>> properly handled this at the time the code was pulled into LilyPond and
>> it would be my guess that its author may be the "Ruth" in LilyPond's
>> DEDICATION file).
>
> I am sure Ruth had nothing to do with Yaffut.

One wild speculation curbed.

>> At any rate, it should meet our needs.  In a similar vein, there seems
>> no ongoing point in maintaining "flower" outside of what we need for
>> LilyPond.
>
> agreed.

At some point of time, one might be tempted to just fold it in the tree.
The main point is that flower is independent of Guile and the rest of
LilyPond, and that limits the extent you have to search for some things
in the code base.

-- 
David Kastrup