On 12/13/11 4:42 PM, "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 12/13/11 12:56 PM, "Ian Hulin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>interpret-markup #{ \markup \markup-command #'par ... #} within a
>>>#(define-markup-command ... ) block. I'd like to deprecate this as I
>>>think it's nasty, smelly, evil and kludgy and ask that users use
>>>
>>>interpret-markup ( markup #:markup-command 'par ... ) instead.
>>>
>>>We'd mark this as such in NEWS, meanwhile taking out the offending
>>>examples from /extending/.
>>>
>>>WDYT?
>>
>> I think that David Kastrup is working like crazy to make #{ #} work very
>> well. Before we give up and put an arbitrary restriction, we ought to
>> give him a chance to see if he can solve the problem.
>>
>> If he can't, I support your proposal. But I expect that he will
>>identify
>> and fix the problem.
>
>A bit more perspective. Whose work broke the doc build? Mine or Ian's?
>Since Ian's work broke existing functionality (functionality that
>contributes considerable to making markup functions accessible to mere
>mortals), does his use of enough invectives really mean that _I_ have to
>identify and fix the shortcomings of his patch without him bothering to
>analyze the effects of his own work? Or have previous work of mine
>ripped out of Lilypond?
Please forgive me for my words not matching my intent. Your reading of my
words, as near as I can tell, is what I had written. However, it was not
my intent.
First, I did not intend to make you the fixer of all patches related to
scheme integration, and I apologize to you for having implied that. I did
not mean to do so.
Also, I did not intend to imply that your marvelous work to allow the use
of lilypond syntax in scheme should be ripped out of lilypond. I can see
that my words did say that, and I retract them.
I also was not sensitive to the use of invective regarding your code. I
should have been. As far as I can see, all of the changes you have made
have been clear improvements. Please accept my apology for my
insensitivity.
As far as I can see, your answer about the parser output has resolved
things -- the parser is working perfectly, so the module solution isn't
yet right.
And if we can't figure out a way to make it work with Guile 2.0, I'd be in
favor of staying with 1.8 instead of ripping out these improvements.
What I meant to say was that I thought you would have some insight, and be
able to identify whether there were any issues with the #{ #} syntax. The
parser output shows that there are no issues with that syntax, so we need
to find a better way to handle this shift in preparation for Guile 2.0.
Again, please forgive my insensitivity. And thank you for your very
significant contributions to LilyPond.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
