On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Ian Hulin <ianhuli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu 18 Aug 2011 07:50:28 BST, pnor...@gmail.com wrote: > > The load-order issue appears to be fixed, testing with git and guile 1.8 > and 2.0.2. Ignoring whitespace changes, this patch LGTM. > > Some more shuffling is needed to make sure we have markup commands > defined where they need to be, but that's beyond the scope of this > patch. > > Should we have a Lilypond Markup Syntax/Guile V2 Tracker, then?
I think we should have one tracker per issue that we encounter. It becomes difficult to handle what has been fixed (and where) when we have umbrella issues. > If there are any dependencies in the load list that you know about that can > still bite us could we record these in the tracker, for instance the markup > command itself works with both Guile 1.8 and 2.0 if it is loaded later in > the list in a module apart from markup-macros.scm, but fails with 2.0 if you > move the definition from markup.scm to the bottom of markup-macros.scm. Yes, any issues we find like this should have separate tracker issues. I've just opened one: https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1826 I'll open more later today if I find time. > There are also some design issues to consider like: > > Would the markup.scm and markup-macros.scm definitions work better as a SCM > module? Possibly. > Should we/can we move over to making the markup subsystem hygienic by using > define-syntax? > > (This is quite a big piece of work, and last time I tried looking at it, it > seemed like it should be simple but made my head hurt). > It's a translation exercise very like doing the document translation, and > currently definitely needs to be done by a human being rather than software. If we want backwards compatibility with Guile 1.8, we shouldn't move to define-syntax, as it's not implemented in Guile 1.8. :P > Current plans once this is pushed is to tackle Tracker 1780 (Guile V2 > squawking with deprecation errors because of (format) calls without a > destination parameter) and then get back to Tracker 1686 (tackling the issue > of scheme compilation). Sounds good, thanks Ian! _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel