Mikael Djurfeldt writes: Hello,
> That was elegant. :-) :) > Nope---haven't seen it. (Or, at least I do not remember it.) > > Maybe I should have a look at what the optimizer can do about Mark's > code. (As you might have seen, my code is a modification of the method > syntax implementation itself.) Yes, I didn't quite get if this brings something else too, except for the obvious > Any opinions on what is best: Having a define-method* or having the > functionality in define-method itself? ...which I think in your version, not having to use define-method* feels more elegant/GOOPSy to me, as it's all overloads/generics, but I have no strong opionion on this. Thanks for working on this! Greetings, Janneke -- Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® https://AvatarAcademy.com
