Thanks! See responses to Tomas.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 1:20 PM <jann...@gnu.org> wrote: > 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 >
