Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> lilypond a.ly b.ly >>> >>> we want to reuse the built-in definitions, without changes effected >>> in a.ly leaking into the processing of b.ly >> >> Wouldn't just putting the built-in definition at public scope >> accomplish that? > > I don't know. Why don't you try it, and send us a patch if it passes > the regression tests?
That would not be my first thought when meddling with code I know nothing about, and where I assume that somebody had created it because of some inherent necessity. And not every dead end needs to be entered repeatedly. It is a waste of time. But I think that guile's module system changed in the last few years, so it is actually possible that some necessities went away since the code was written. I'll probably take a look. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
