On 6/25/09 4:51 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>
>
> Here are 2 versions of the same procedure.
> Is the second one *too* concise and cryptic?
> - Mark
I actually like the general format of the second one better.
But I'd rewrite it a bit: It's a string-compare-http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
Here are 2 versions of the same procedure.
Is the second one *too* concise and cryptic?
- Mark
(define (ly:string-compare a b ci)
(let ((mismatch (first-diff-chars a b ci)))
(if mismatch
(if (car mismatch)
(if (cdr mismatch)
((if ci ly:char-cihttp://lists
Oops, just discovered that (ly:charhttp://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 6/25/09 1:23 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>> I like this, because it makes the out-of-order stuff be only a
>> programmer's problem, and programmers can use searches to find
>> the code they're looking for.
>
> To an extent, I would say. There's obvious value t
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> I have not put a question mark on ci because ? is used in SICP
> to indicate a predicate (i.e. a function returning a boolean)
> rather than a boolean value directly.
I like it. Nice subtlety. Forgot to make that change in the
previous post (butI've noted it).
- Mark
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> I like this, because it makes the out-of-order stuff be only a
> programmer's problem, and programmers can use searches to find
> the code they're looking for.
To an extent, I would say. There's obvious value to well-organized
code. The more searches a programmer needs t
Mark,
I like this, because it makes the out-of-order stuff be only a programmer's
problem, and programmers can use searches to find the code they're looking
for.
A couple of other comments:
The name of the file is lily-sort.scm, but the comment in the header says
ly-sort.scm. I much prefer l
On 6/24/09 8:49 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> One thing I don't understand: why do I need to use (load ...) to
> retrieve functions that are defined with define-public in the same
> directory?
>
The loading of the scm files is actually not taken care of by just being in
the same directory.
Graham Percival wrote:
> I think this is the coolest thing I've ever seen on a lilypond
> mailist, and that says a lot. :)
Thanks, Graham!
Regarding the all-grob-properties alist in define-grobs.scm...
I've written a function that will automatically sort the alist
(soon after its definition) s
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 01:50:48AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Isn't this better? Then we can change line 2286 in
> define-grobs.scm
> to this:
>
> (set! all-grob-descriptions
> (sort all-grob-descriptions ly:alist-ci
> It's easy enough to write similar procedures for sorting the
> proper
Graham Percival wrote:
> > > I prefer case-insensitive so X-offset and Y-offset are near the
> > > bottom (where I expect to find them). Let me know if you object.
> >
> > Please use the alphabetical ordering used in other SCM files. I don't
> > mind if you move around the uppercased properties
2009/6/19 Mark Polesky :
>
>> One curious thing I've noticed when looking over this
>> is in the definition for Script:
>>
>> line 1477: ;; don't set direction here: it breaks staccato.
>>
>> ...then 9 lines later, direction is set...
>>
>> line 1486: (direction . ,ly:script-interface::calc-dir
> > One curious thing I've noticed when looking over this
> > is in the definition for Script:
> >
> > line 1477: ;; don't set direction here: it breaks staccato.
> > ...then 9 lines later, direction is set...
> > line 1486: (direction . ,ly:script-interface::calc-direction)
> >
> > I don't
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> >> Any reason why properties listed in define-grobs.scm
> >> are not in alphabetical order? Sometimes I get a little
> >> frustrated looking stuff up in IR 3.1.
> >
> > That file contains:
> > ;;; todo:: reorder sensibly.
> >
> > and IMO alphabetical is a sensible orde
> One curious thing I've noticed when looking over this
> is in the definition for Script:
>
> line 1477: ;; don't set direction here: it breaks staccato.
>
> ...then 9 lines later, direction is set...
>
> line 1486: (direction . ,ly:script-interface::calc-direction)
>
> I don't know if th
On 6/18/09 10:17 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:55:08PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>
>> Any reason why properties listed in define-grobs.scm
>> are not in alphabetical order? Sometimes I get a little
>> frustrated looking stuff up in IR 3.1.
>
> That file contains
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:33:45AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > I prefer case-insensitive so X-offset and Y-offset are near the
> > bottom (where I expect to find them). Let me know if you object.
>
> Please use the alphabetical ordering used in other SCM files. I don't
> mind if you move aro
>> > Alphabetical order makes the most sense to me in this case, with
>> > the grob alist.
Yes.
> I prefer case-insensitive so X-offset and Y-offset are near the
> bottom (where I expect to find them). Let me know if you object.
Please use the alphabetical ordering used in other SCM files. I do
Patrick McCarty wrote:
> Oops, I didn't read your email carefully enough. :-)
>
> The properties (except for "meta", as you noted) can be in any order.
> I am okay with a case-insensitive ordering.
>
> BTW, it looks like the grob list is not completely alphabetized
> (AmbitusAccidental follow
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:14:03PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Mark Polesky
> > To: Patrick McCarty ; Graham Percival
> >
> > Cc: lilypond-devel
> > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:08:52 PM
- Original Message
> From: Mark Polesky
> To: Patrick McCarty ; Graham Percival
>
> Cc: lilypond-devel
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:08:52 PM
> Subject: Re: define-grobs.scm properties not alphabetical
>
>
> Patrick McCarty wrote:
> > IIUC,
Patrick McCarty wrote:
> IIUC, every grob is self-contained, so it shouldn't matter which order
> they are in. Maybe in the past someone wanted to group "related"
> grobs together (like the internal grob property list), thus the
> comment.
>
> Alphabetical order makes the most sense to me in thi
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Graham
Percival wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:55:08PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>
>> Any reason why properties listed in define-grobs.scm
>> are not in alphabetical order? Sometimes I get a little
>> frustrated looking stuff up in IR 3.1.
>
> That file conta
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:55:08PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> Any reason why properties listed in define-grobs.scm
> are not in alphabetical order? Sometimes I get a little
> frustrated looking stuff up in IR 3.1.
That file contains:
;;; todo:: reorder sensibly.
and IMO alphabetical is a sen
Any reason why properties listed in define-grobs.scm
are not in alphabetical order? Sometimes I get a little
frustrated looking stuff up in IR 3.1.
Do they need to be in any particular order?
- Mark
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-
25 matches
Mail list logo
