Johannes Rohrer writes: > * 2013-01-19 18:20 +0100 Ian Hulin: >> On 19/01/13 15:34, Johannes Rohrer wrote: >> > currently the scm/ subdirectory of LilyPond is flat, and all guile >> > modules defined there are immediate submodules of scm. Related >> > modules are not grouped into guile submodules, but marked with a >> > name prefix (e.g. the framework-* group). >> > >> > Is this a conscious design decision? >> > >> > More tho the point, would a proposed patch that introduces a >> > submodule group, hence a subdirectory of scm/ (and performs >> > Makefile changes as required) meet any objections on that ground? >> >> Currently scm/out is being used as part of the Guile V2 work to hold >> the byte-compiled scm modules. >> >> There are also possible implications regarding the LilyPond >> initialization code since it needs to know that internal Guile/Scheme >> variables such as %load-path are set up correctly. >> >> I like your idea in principle, but I would prefer it if it was >> deferred until after we have managed to complete the cut-over to using >> Guile V2. > > Understood, I will resist the temptation for now. Thanks for the quick > response. > > >> Bug-squad, it's probably worth raising a tracker entitled something >> like "LilyPond should support a module hierarchy in scm directory >> rather than a single flat directory". > > CC to bug-lilypond; maybe the guile V2 issues (#1055?) should then be > marked as blocking that new item. > > > Best regards > > Johannes
New tracker created by Eluze. http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3129 and tracker 1055 updated: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1055#c27 I'm posting this so the bug squad can see the report has been handled. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond