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
