On 9/6/10 6:53 AM, "Mike Solomon" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Carl, > I am reticent to go any farther with this patch after Joe's email > concerning what pure print functions actually need to do. There is no way > to verify that these added functions behave correctly, which means that we > put the user in a position where they'll see no warning or error messages > but, like me, will be waiting with their fingers crossed for upwards of 13 > hours before realizing that lilypond had descended into an infinite loop > because of various callbacks that their home-cooked pure print function > triggered without their knowing it. Of course, we could just write > documentation to alert users of this, but there is always the chance that > (1) they don't read it; (2) even after having read it, they aren't familiar > enough with lilypond's internal workings to know if what they're doing is, > in fact, triggering one of the callbacks that pure print cannot touch. > None of this is necessarily an impediment to moving forward if you feel > that the user should just be careful, but it does run the risk of leaving an > unchecked way in lilypond to cause a huge time drain.
Ahh -- now I understand the related emails. I agree with you. Until we can get a really good definition of what is allowed in pure print callbacks, we *shouldn't* make the list public. OK, I'll add a comment to the tracker and move the priority to postponed. Thanks, Carl > > ~Mike > > > On 9/6/10 6:35 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> LGTM. >> >> The else clause is one space too far to the right, >> >> I couldn't do sn inline comment because the side-by-side diff is >> missing. >> >> Carl >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/2020041/ >> > > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
