Comment #9 on issue 2376 by d...@gnu.org: Automatic footnotes on \null markups causes unexpected results
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2376
I've taken a look at the Scheme functions for stencils, and they basically _all_ create copies whenever they operate on a stencil. It appears that stencils are simple smobs (you don't work with self_scm () but rather smobbed_copy).
So it does not really make sense to have constants like the null and the empty stencil be functions: all of the Scheme-level accessors create their own copies. If the footnote code does not do this (and presumably it uses C++ for wreaking its havoc), that is the fault of the footnote code for not keeping with the design principles of stencils. We should fix it there instead of causing unnecessary pain everywhere else. It does not appear to me like stencils are intended to be modifiable objects in the first place.
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
