On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:29 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> writes: > >> I'm kind of surprised that you ended up going to sourceforge, whereas >> github was discarded because it wasn't a Free enough solution. > > We didn't. We went to Allura (the software SourceForge is running on) > in order to install on a GNU server. Tests of the issue data base and > the import did happen on SourceForge for efficiency reasons (we've > missed getting everything set up in time nevertheless) but there is no > intent of moving anything but test installations to SourceForge. > >> As dak mentions, this plan goes completely against how LilyPond >> interacts with scheme, and is IMO a bad idea. In fact, I spent a giant >> amount of energy distangling the C++ code from type hierarchy (this >> was in the 1.2 or 1.4 version timeframe IIRC), so interfaces can be >> mixed and matched at runtime. > > Well, this particular patch does really nothing obnoxious apart from the > proposed commit message.
If anything should be changed here, then the patch should add a large comment about why the grob/item/spanner hierarchy is setup the way it is, and why the *_interface classes do not take part in the type hierarchy. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
