On 4/4/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason for having C++ is historical. > > I'm not certain that using Scheme for everything will lower hackability > of the code, eg. I'm still not as fluent in Scheme as in C++ --with all > its shortcomings. Also, having opaque C++ objects is convenient, > because it makes it easy to enforce invariants and maintain encapsulation.
If I were writing LilyPond, from scratch, alone, I'd probably write it in Standard ML. Unfortunately, not a lot of hackers are familiar with that. As for opaqueness, that's certainly possible in Scheme, and implementations like PLT provide lots of object-oriented kinds of things if you're into that. What I'd really like to see is more functional (in the FP sense) management of Stencils. set!s make me nervous. David Feuer _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
