David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Now here is one thing worth considering: currently the predicate scheme? > is defined as > (define-public (scheme? x) #t) > > I lean towards defining it instead as > (define-public (scheme? x) (not (eq? x (begin)))) > so that it will accept anything _except_ void expressions. > > Does that appear like a good idea?
Ugh, it means that define-void-function can't be a special case of define-scheme-function: define-void-function will always return a void expression, and define-scheme-function is defined to return a value of type scheme?, so Lilypond would protest if you tried to return a void expression and probably return #f after flagging an error. define-scheme-function is pretty young, so perhaps disallowing it from returning void expressions makes some sense without all too much compatibility pain as long as define-void-function is available for functions not returning anything. Is it ok if I do this as one commit series? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
