Re: Make accidental styles available as context mods. (issue 4819064)

2011-10-19 Thread dak
Sorry, I always start thinking only when far too late in the game. Anyway, here is a musing: should't the _main_ interface to accidental modifications be context mods? You won't need to set them in midcontext except in unusual situations, and then \applyContext (?) is available. Or does that mak

Re: GUB

2011-10-19 Thread Graham Percival
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:00:26PM -0600, Colin Campbell wrote: > >Command barfed: cd /home/colin/gub/target/tools/build/curl-7.19.0 > >&& make -j4 > > > >Tail of target/tools/log/curl.log > >make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 > >make[1]: Leaving directory > >`/home/colin/gub/target/tools/

Re: Make accidental styles available as context mods. (issue 4819064)

2011-10-19 Thread k-ohara5a5a
Neil, don't forget to push this. I've been looking forward to it. http://codereview.appspot.com/4819064/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GUB

2011-10-19 Thread Colin Campbell
On 11-10-08 10:38 AM, Graham Percival wrote: On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:03:02PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: Patch for GUB git to update locations of relevant files that were missing. Thanks, pushed. Cheers, - Graham After doing a git pull -r in ~/gub, then make bootstrap -dB, I get: must

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 10/19/11 3:14 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > >> >> I am not enthused about this particular consequence of auto-exporting >> Scheme expressions. I currently don't see a better way of handling it, >> and it has flagged more bad code than false positives when I tried it. >> But I would be quite

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread Graham Percival
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:14:26PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > An afterthought, however: we do have an inordinate amount of user-level > commands that need to be called from Scheme rather than with Lilypond > syntax. That does not make sense. Void music functions have been > around for eterniti

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
David Kastrup writes: > Carl Sorensen writes: > >> On 10/19/11 3:26 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >>> >>>\void #(hashq-set! ...) >>>\void #(hashq-set! ...) >>> >>>rather than >>> >>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...) >>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...) >>> >>>It's a bit C-ish, but not all that bad, and it fits wi

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
Carl Sorensen writes: > On 10/19/11 3:26 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >> >>\void #(hashq-set! ...) >>\void #(hashq-set! ...) >> >>rather than >> >>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...) >>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...) >> >>It's a bit C-ish, but not all that bad, and it fits with >>define-void-function. > > \return

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 10/19/11 3:26 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >Štěpán Němec writes: > >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:22:09 +0200 >> David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> What would people prefer for creating a Lilypond function that returns >>> an "unspecified" value (what the Guile read-eval-print loop takes as a >>> hint to p

Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
David Kastrup writes: >> David Kastrup writes: >> >>> It might make sense to introduce a syntax change like that in two >>> stages: in the first stage, one just complains about embedded Scheme >>> that could be mistaken for something useful. Only in the second >>> stage, one does not complain b

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
Štěpán Němec writes: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:26:18 +0200 > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Ok. Now unfortunately, Guile has a number of functions that one would >> expect to return SCM_UNSPECIFIED, but which return something else. >> hashq-set!, set-object-property! and a few others. So I need a nic

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
Štěpán Němec writes: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:22:09 +0200 > David Kastrup wrote: > >> What would people prefer for creating a Lilypond function that returns >> an "unspecified" value (what the Guile read-eval-print loop takes as a >> hint to print nothing at all) and is called for its side effect

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread Bertrand Bordage
You're right... So I vote for define-void-function. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
Bertrand Bordage writes: > "define-procedure" sounds too generic to me.  Why not > "define-void-procedure" ? That's two distinctions from define-*-function and we need just one as far as I can see. If we have define-void-procedure, what would be a non-void procedure? If there is no such thing

Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread Bertrand Bordage
"define-procedure" sounds too generic to me. Why not "define-void-procedure" ? Bertrand ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

define-void-function or define-procedure ?

2011-10-19 Thread David Kastrup
What would people prefer for creating a Lilypond function that returns an "unspecified" value (what the Guile read-eval-print loop takes as a hint to print nothing at all) and is called for its side effect? define-void-function or define-procedure? The first is a bit more C-ish, the second more

Re: First stab at getting script offsets right. (issue 5235052)

2011-10-19 Thread m...@apollinemike.com
On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:56 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/diff/17001/lily/script-engraver.cc > File lily/script-engraver.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/diff/17001/lily/script-engraver.cc#newcode206 > lily/script-engraver.cc:206: > Sc