Le 22 nov. 2009 à 00:00, David Kastrup a écrit : > >> I'd be insterested to see an implementation of a single >> `define-markup-command' for builtin and user defined markups, where >> user defined commands do not pollute the (lily) module, and still are >> available across file includes. > > There is no real necessity: you can perfectly well define different > define-markup-command versions for builtin and user defined markups and > put them in different namespaces.
Oh, two different macros, doing different things, but with the same name, right, now that design seems much better indeed. No possible confusion. We're not going in the right direction. If you can come up with a single implementation, then it's excellent. If there are two different implementations, then there will be two different names. No confusion. If you want to test your unified implementation, consider the following test case: lilypond file1.ly file2.ly and lilypond file1.ly lilypond file2.ly must give exactly the same result, even if file1.ly redefines a builtin command. > It is not a "little inconvenience" if internals are defined in a > different, undocumented way that apparently only a single developer > understands and realizes. This comment would have been valid a few hours before, but it's not anymore. <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commitdiff;h=b82200d56b21b37951704528d59fc41abb746fbd> Maybe the way to make a user defined command, starting from a bultin one, should be detailed in the manuals. Granted. Any other /valid/ objections? You seem to to able to spend a lot of time in endless discussions. You're lucky. That's not my case. Now I'll be discussing patches. Only. Nicolas _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
