On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Ian Hulin <i...@hulin.org.uk> wrote:
> (define (make-music-type-predicate . music-types)
> (define ((make-music-type-predicate-aux mtypes) expr)
> (if (null? mtypes)
> #f
> (or (eqv? (car mtypes) (ly:music-property expr 'name))
> ((make-music-type-predicate-aux (cdr mtypes)) expr))))
> (make-music-type-predicate-aux music-types))
>
> I'm a bit puzzled by this code. Even if we move the nested definition
> out from within make-music-predicate, how does it work? Variable
> make-music-type-predicate is not declared anywhere else, and yet here we
> appear to ask guile to resolve and call it before it is declared and
> bound to anything?
are you sure? I only see calls to the -aux helper.
> Trying this in guile V1.8.7 repl with a dummy for ly:music-property and
> it will work as written, but in V1.9.11 it always fails with
> ERROR: in procedure macro-expand:
> ERROR: source expression failed to match any pattern in (define
> ((make-music-type-predicate-aux mtypes) expr) (if (null? mtypes) #f (or
> (eqv? (car mtypes) (ly:music-property expr 'name))
> ((make-music-type-predicate-aux (cdr mtypes)) expr))))
>
> V1.9.11 throws the error whether or not the repl is called with
> - --no-auto-compile. It also doesn't help to try and un-nest the inner
> (define and declare it at top-level.
Where is the latest version of this patch? I downloaded a version
from rietveld which required the following patch to get to
display-lily.scm
commit 57992da984aaf16d6161dc44e5d9f7cb290ac813
Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@lilypond.org>
Date: Sun Aug 29 23:30:55 2010 -0300
Remove stray dots.
diff --git a/scm/lily.scm b/scm/lily.scm
index 0aa2ad4..f898962 100644
--- a/scm/lily.scm
+++ b/scm/lily.scm
@@ -213,9 +213,9 @@ messages into errors.")
format)
(define (simple-format-handler dest . rest)
- (if (string? dest)
- (apply fancy-format (cons #f (cons dest . rest)))
- (apply fancy-format (cons dest . rest))))
+ (if (string? dest)
+ (apply fancy-format (cons #f (cons dest rest)))
+ (apply fancy-format (cons dest rest))))
> Patrick and Neil, do I have to fix all the compatibility problems in all
> the scm files loaded by lily.scm in order to push what we have so far?
As long as the compile for 1.8 keeps working, I don't think it's a
problem incrementally tackling 1.9 compatibility problems.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
