Re: Should we be touching goops?

On 2022-06-06 6:34 pm, David Kastrup wrote: I saw no point in letting the division of Moments deliver a Moment like ly:moment-div does, so ly:moment-main fetches the resulting rational. Returning a Moment would be just meaningless. While I objected to distinguishing time spans from time points b

Re: Should we be touching goops?

Aaron Hill writes: > On 2022-06-06 5:24 pm, David Kastrup wrote: >> Putting a bit more meat on what this may mean: >> > > This certainly lends some brevity being able to use operators rather > than named procedures. Providing all this

Re: Should we be touching goops?

On 2022-06-06 6:19 pm, Aaron Hill wrote: That said, I did find one surprise looking at [1]. I would not have expected 1+ (increment) to work without some way of Scheme knowing how to construct unity for a given type. Am I just overlooking where such a is being specified? Or is there supposed

Re: Should we be touching goops?

On 2022-06-06 5:24 pm, David Kastrup wrote: Putting a bit more meat on what this may mean: This certainly lends some brevity being able to use operators rather than named procedures. Providing all this is firstly correct and secon

Re: Should we be touching goops?

David Kastrup writes: > GOOPS was supposed to cause quite a performance hit with Guile 1.8 when > used extensively. It wasn't supposed to do this with Guile 2+ so > something like this should be feasible, also for other types: > > #(use-modules (oop goops)) > > #(define (class-of (ly:make-momen