[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Since not every tuning property is useful, our current strategy is to > > hard-code most constants, except for paddings and thicknesses (and > > other parameters that we imagine to be changed frequently), and > > respond to any request for more tunability by adding another property. > > > > I'd be very willing to change over to constants rather than properties. > I put everything in as properties because in the source code I was > reviewing, every time there was a constant there was a comment ";;urg". > It appeared to me that your programming style wanted no constants.
Our thoughts on this matter aren't entirely set in stone. Since you've already added a lot of properties, we can't save precious development time by not using properties :-) Maybe you could review all of them, and prune the ones which are surely not user-serviceable. > Is the preferred method of using constants to define named constants, > then use those named constants in the code? If so, should the named > constants just be defined at the top of fret-diagrams.scm? Good question - there is no preferred method yet, but perhaps your proposal is a good idea. > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
