On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:17 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > It would be nice to have fewer incompatible modes, and simpler ways of > extending them. > > And "the C++ must go" with regard to how LilyPond can be extended. If > parts of LilyPond require "object orientation", then the respective > tools need to be available from Scheme. No user can be expected to > recompile.
Just a word of caution: scheme is a dynamic language, so programming errors will only discovered at runtime, which requires a lot of investment in testing. I think that the current setup where large parts are in C++ is pretty good, since it gets us both type checking and runtime speed. (the thought of having to go in and change -let's say- the partcombiner without breaking anything makes me shudder.) -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
