Comment #7 on issue 2376 by mts...@gmail.com: Automatic footnotes on \null
markups causes unexpected results
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2376
« There will be lots of situations where one will want to pass a typed
equivalent of "nothing", and it is a nuisance if "nothing" needs to get
allocated anew every time and is not eq? to "nothing". »
But this why we use s.s_empty () to check for nothing and not s ==
EMPTY_STENCIL or scm_eqv (s.smobbed_copy (), EMPTY_STENCIL.smobbed_copy ()).
What you're talking about is a major architecture change. The first note
in stencil.hh is:
* Because of the way that Stencil is implemented, it is the most
efficient to add "fresh" stencils to what you're going to build.
The entire stencil architecture revolves around this principle.
I think it's important to fix this issue using the current architecture
(meaning adding "fresh" stencils, as the header file suggests). If you
want to change it from the ground up, then a new issue can be opened to
explore that, but I think that should be separate from this issue.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
