> Speaking as a long-time lilypond developer, it is my experience that > the errors you point out are not a problem (except for the SCM => > bool conversion). GUILE's API uses data that can be passed into C > functions efficiently as parameters. This means that the SCM type > must be a machine word, so the genericity suggested by the GUILE > docs are a joke. > > If you feel compelled to change large swaths of source code by > substituting x == SCM_EOL with scm_is_eq(x, SCM_EOL), then I can't > stop you, but to me it just looks like a waste of time.
My knowledge of Guile is too limited to agree or disagree, but my gut feeling is that such clean-up work is a good starting point for people who want to get more intimate with LilyPond. Using Guile as envisioned by its creators is not a bad thing, is it? To exaggerate, it is possible that you, Han-Wen, as a Guile developer, know too much about its implementation details. Anybody else is bound to the documentation, and as long as you don't say that the Guile docs are incorrect w.r.t. David's issue, I favor a conversion to the `correct' idiom. BTW, I've started in a similar way while developing FreeType, and today I'm the main maintainer :-) Werner _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
