On 4/18/09 7:56 PM, "Joe Neeman" <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 22:17 -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/41099/diff/1021/62#newcode347
>>> Line 347: SCM dash_details)
>>> Since dash_details seems to just be a list of Reals, perhaps its better
>>> to have a vector<Real> const& (with an empty vector to signify a solid
>>> slur).
>>
>> No, dash_details is a list of lists of floating point numbers. There is one
>> list for each segment of the slur; there can be as many segments as the user
>> desires.
>
> Ah, OK. I won't insist, but I think it might be nicer to make this more
> statically typed. For example:
> typedef struct {
> Real t_min;
> Real t_max;
> Real dash_fraction;
> Real dash_period;
> } Dash_definition;
> and then make the argument a vector<Dash_definition>. Since C++ is a
> statically typed language, I think it's nicer to make use of that static
> typing and do the type checking/conversion for SCM variables as early as
> possible instead of propagating them through the C++ code.
I actually like the idea of checking it early, because then I could throw a
meaningful error if there's a problem. However, if I do that, I'll have to
parse the SCM list in three different places: slur::print, tie::print, and
arpeggio::print. If I let it be a SCM, then I only parse it one place:
Lookup::slur. I thought that the lack of duplicated code might balance out
with the lack of static typing.
If I do change to static typing, then I should have one routine that is
called from all three places, something like scm2dash_definition. If I were
to write such a function, where would I put it? It seems like
lily/lily-guile.cc is supposed to contain more general things than this
would be.
I could make it part of Lookup, and call it there, but it's not really
consistent with a Lookup:: function, since they're supposed to be stencils.
I could put it in lily/misc.cc, but it doesn't seem much like those
functions.
How about if I added it to Slur::, so we had a Slur::parse_dash_definition,
and then I could call it from Slur::print, Tie::print, and Arpeggio::print?
That seems to make sense to me.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
