On 7/10/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Erik Sandberg schreef:
>> Use C++ names in C++, and scheme names in scheme, i.e.
>>
>> Foo_bar::bla_bla
>>
>> for handling a bla-bla-event.
>
> so do you also think that all stream-event classes should be named
> like 'arpeggio-event' rather than 'ArpeggioEvent'?
>
> Regarding bla_bla for classes, it makes me nervous about namespace
> clashes. Why not use Foo_bar::bla_bla_event?
maybe
Foo_bar::listen_bla_bla
ok, fair enough.
Isn't there a way to introduce an intermediate list of event types,
just like music has (eg. ArpeggioEvent has a arpeggio-event, which is
the one we're looking for?). It's conceivable that you want to handle
multiple event types (CreateContextEvent, FinishContextEvent) with one
routine.
I've been thinking about this: In this case, why don't we junk the
ArpeggioEvent form altogether? I don't see a practical use for it.
Currently, there's already support for grouping events; the symbol
ArpeggioEvent refers to a data structure representing the set of
superclasses of ArpeggioEvent. The classes are currently strictly
hierarchical, but I don't think there are any technical barriers to
change that.
I'm not completely satisfied with the data structures around
event-classes, but I think I'll postpone fixing it until I see the
problems it causes.
Erik
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
