Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-29 Thread David Kastrup
Carl Sorensen writes: > On 8/28/09 10:56 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > >> Carl Sorensen writes: >> >>> On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:16 PM, "Nicolas Sceaux" >>> wrote: >>> According to R5RS, it is an error to modify a literal list. If a function returns '(), the caller won't be allowe

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-29 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 8/28/09 10:56 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > Carl Sorensen writes: > >> On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:16 PM, "Nicolas Sceaux" >> wrote: >> >>> >>> According to R5RS, it is an error to modify a literal list. >>> If a function returns '(), the caller won't be allowed to >>> apply a modifying funct

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-29 Thread Nicolas Sceaux
Le 29 août 09 à 06:56, David Kastrup a écrit : Carl Sorensen writes: On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:16 PM, "Nicolas Sceaux" wrote: According to R5RS, it is an error to modify a literal list. If a function returns '(), the caller won't be allowed to apply a modifying function on the result (eg. a

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-28 Thread David Kastrup
Carl Sorensen writes: > On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:16 PM, "Nicolas Sceaux" > wrote: > >> >> According to R5RS, it is an error to modify a literal list. >> If a function returns '(), the caller won't be allowed to >> apply a modifying function on the result (eg. append!) >> > > IIUC, '() is not a li

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-28 Thread Carl Sorensen
On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:16 PM, "Nicolas Sceaux" wrote: > > According to R5RS, it is an error to modify a literal list. > If a function returns '(), the caller won't be allowed to > apply a modifying function on the result (eg. append!) > IIUC, '() is not a literal list, but a constant that rep

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-28 Thread Nicolas Sceaux
Le 27 août 09 à 22:38, Neil Puttock a écrit : 2009/8/26 Carl Sorensen : The patch looks good to me. Cheers. You code the empty list as (list). I typically code the empty list as '(). It there a preference? I suspect that we ought to be consistent, although it's not highly important.

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-27 Thread Neil Puttock
2009/8/26 Carl Sorensen : > The patch looks good to me. Cheers. > You code the empty list as (list).  I typically code the empty list as '(). > > It there a preference?  I suspect that we ought to be consistent, although > it's not highly important.  It could be part of the code janitor work, >

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-26 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
'() is preferred, as it evaluates to a constant. (list) is a function call, which might mean different things if you override the definition of list. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > You code the empty list as (list).  I typically code the empty list as '(). > > It there a

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-26 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 8/25/09 2:28 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > Hi, > > I've just posted a revised patchset which deals with Han-Wen's comments. > > http://codereview.appspot.com/110047/show The patch looks good to me. I have a question about style, though. You code the empty list as (list). I typically cod

Re: [PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-25 Thread Neil Puttock
Hi, I've just posted a revised patchset which deals with Han-Wen's comments. http://codereview.appspot.com/110047/show Thanks, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[PATCH] Move ambitus print callback to scheme

2009-08-19 Thread Neil Puttock
Hi, Please review this patch, which implements ambitus::print in output-lib.scm and removes the hard-coded ambitus length via the property 'gap. http://codereview.appspot.com/110047/show Thanks, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu