Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > I appreciate your work on this. > > However, I am *not* in favor of moving in this direction to solve the > problems you correctly identified. > > In my mind, the *last* thing we need is another opaque interface in > LilyPond, where in the markup command we don't know whether a certain > property is to be looked up in props or to be assigned a value in a > let-binding from the define-internal-markup-command macro. > > I think it's *much* better to pass default values as appended values > to the tail of props. Then we can go ahead and use a props lookup in > the code.
Hm? As I already wrote, I did a code review and this is the style used for 95% of the existing markups. My patches just bring the remaining 5% in line with the rest. There is not much point in _not_ applying them unless you plan to change the other 95%. Even then, starting from a consistent state does not much harm. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
