On 2018/04/22 13:37:50, dak wrote:
So again I don't see what problem you are trying to solve.

1. find_something(...)->blahblah()
I have no idea whether that will call blahblah() with a valid instance
of something.

2. find_something(...).blahblah()
I know will call blahblah() with a valid instance of something.

Basically you want to abuse reference notation as some kind of value
passing
contract, mixing up semantics and syntax in the process.

I don't understand your concerns, but this change is not that important
to me, so I will withdraw it.  "If it can't be null, use a reference"
has been the rule of thumb at work for almost two decades, but LilyPond
is older than that, so I will try to cope with it.

Part of the reason is that the identity can be
verified by pointer comparison, and that is what eq? does in the
Scheme world.

I would like to understand this statement a little better for my own
benefit.  The address of a referenced object can be obtained with
operator &.  It isn't lost.



https://codereview.appspot.com/341150043/

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Reply via email to