On 2013/02/11 17:15:47, dak wrote:
On 2013/02/11 17:01:17, mike7 wrote: > On 11 févr. 2013, at 16:29, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote:
> > scm/output-lib.scm:61: (define-public pure-safe-stencil-height > > Perhaps add any information about the name? Its name claims to
produce
> > a pure value, but it actually outputs callbacks both for pure and > > unpure. What makes it "safe"? > > maybe unpure-pure-stencil-height is better?
Its effect would presumably be a callback that is not replaced by its
value when
called. Correct? All that pure/unpure whatever is just waving
internals around
for a concept that has little to do with it.
I'd use something like (ly:retriggerable-callback ly:grob::stencil-height) for that, and since you use it a whole lot of time and presumably
don't want to
have one closure per use, you can use something like
(define ly:grob::retriggerable-stencil-height (ly:retriggerable-callback ly:grob::stencil-height))
once in a useful location and then use that. Your coding style only
ever shows
mechanisms, not concepts. That makes the code about as pleasant and
easy to
read as disassembled machine code. I am not sure I got the concept
right here:
that's your job. Not that of the reader or reviewer.
Is there a particular reason you ignored this comment, judging from the commit you pushed to staging on your own initiative? https://codereview.appspot.com/7300082/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
