On 11/17/09 1:32 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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.
I agree with this, and withdraw my objection to the patch.
I still don't like the divergence between define-markup-command and
define-internal-markup-command.
Perhaps we should move towards required the default properties list for all
defined markup commands.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
