On 28 févr. 2013, at 06:48, d...@gnu.org wrote: > On 2013/02/27 23:00:48, mike7 wrote: >> On 27 févr. 2013, at 19:06, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote: > >> > >> > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly >> > File input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly (right): >> > >> > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly#newcode129 >> > input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly:129: >> > side-position-interface::y-aligned-side) >> > I really don't understand why you ask on the developer list about >> > gratuitous prefix changes because of a different implementation > language >> > when you propose such changes right afterwards. >> > > >> In my e-mail, I stated: >> "I'd prefer if all native Scheme functions did not have the ly: prefix > - it >> helps to know what things are where." > > So why do you ask when you ignore the answer? > >> side-position-interface::y-aligned-side above is a native Scheme > function that >> does not have the ly: prefix. > > You remove the prefix in this patch set.
Sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean. ly:side-position-interface::y-aligned-side is defined in side-position-interface.cc side-position-interface::y-aligned-side is defined in output-lib.scm The function defined in C++ has the ly: prefix, whereas the function defined in Scheme doesn't. > >> > https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob.cc >> > File lily/grob.cc (right): >> > >> > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob.cc#newcode866 >> > lily/grob.cc:866: if (to_boolean (scm_object_property >> > (me->get_property_data ("stencil"), ly_symbol2scm ("ly:stencil?")))) >> > Where is this object property being set? > >> In define-grobs.scm. > > I've looked very thoroughly without success. I can't find a setting > of the ly:stencil? object property in your patch set, and I can't find > it in the current code base, either. > > Care for a line number? Ah, OK, I misunderstood your question. In your reasking it, I now see (a) exactly what you mean; and (b) that I screwed up this test. I fixed the test and posted a new patch set. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
