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

Reply via email to