On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Paul Morris <p...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 2015, at 7:13 PM, Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I wonder if this function would better be defined in Scheme than C++. > If > >> someone wanted to do something like you're doing, it wouldn't be a > trivial > >> matter to first redo the function in Scheme to make the necessary > changes. > > > > I'd love to see the KeySig-stencil in scheme in our code-base. > > Me too. The more Scheme the better, IMHO and FWIW. As long as it makes > sense to those who understand the trade offs, of course. > Can't imagine that there would be a noticeable performance hit here. (Personally, i value customizability over gains in speed I probably wouldn't even notice.) > > (Not long ago I was looking at the C++ function that draws ledger lines > (ly:ledger-line-spanner::print in ledger-line-spanner.cc), thinking about > overriding it with a custom function. Well, I didn’t get very far… So > I’ll have to look into David N.’s conversion work here. David N. if at any > point you find yourself looking for another C++ to Scheme translation > challenge, let me know!) > > Bring it on! Well, hopefully it's not one that calls on other functions that need to be converted as well! This one was nice in that there are Scheme equivalents for everything called. No doubt finding the bug I introduced is going to take longer than the (ample) time I've already spent on this :( David
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
