David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:49:06AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anybody actually using the "music-cause"? Inside of LilyPond, the only
>>>> appearance (apart from its declaration) would be
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> ES TODO: This is a temporary fix. Stream_events should not be
>>>> aware of music.
>>>> */
>>>> e->set_property ("music-cause", self_scm ());
>>>
>>> If it's used anywhere, it would be here:
>>> http://lilypond.org/website/pdf/thesis-erik-sandberg
>>>
>>> It may have been added just so he could produce some graphs or
>>> tables or something? I know that I have a ton of "graph-producing
>>> code" in Artifastring and Vivi like that.
>>
>> Seems somewhat pointless since events take the whole mutable property
>> list of their originating music event anyway. If you need more for
>> tracking, you could just do
>>
>> maketrackable =
>> #(define-music-function (parser location m)
>> (music-map
>> (lambda (m)
>> (set! ly:music-property 'music-cause m)
>> m)
>> m))
>>
>> and call that on your music before processing.
>
> I lean towards going through with my threat here and removing
> music-cause which seems like a weird punch-through kind of property.
> Any objections here? Anybody actually using it anywhere?
Darn it. I see that the edition engraver sets this somewhere, so
removing music-cause will possibly make the edition engraver bomb out.
Or do we check music properties (as a note aside: this is likely going
to happen with some change of mine that will eventually end up in
LilyPond, at the latest). I should have gone through when I asked
first: bad ideas are certain to get picked up eventually.
So what now?
--
David Kastrup
