"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes: > I know very little about this whole Guile 2.0 business, but if there > were ever a time to rewrite the markup code, this'd be it. > > It'd be a shame for Ian to do backflips over markups only to have them > gutted in the future. > > Ideally, I would like to see every graphical object in LilyPond be a > Grob, the Prob class (and maybe even the Paper_score class) > eliminated, and define-markup-command no longer be a macro but rather > a normal function that results in the creations of Grobs and overrides > to these Grobs.
Normal function: problem with that is that we have separate name spaces for Lilypond identifiers and markup functions (but not variables containing markups). Those are currently implemented by tacking "-markup" to the defined names in the define-markup-command macro. Turning define-markup-command into a function with the use patterns of define-music-function would for that reason not be feasible. > Does this seem like it's worth it? It has been on my mind for some > time, but given that you're at a moment where a lot of code rewriting > may need to happen, it seems like a good idea to make structural > changes now rather than later. > > Bertrand and I kicked around this idea back in the day and afterwards > I put together a little writeup to summarize our discussion (Bertrand > - feel free to add or subtract as you see fit) - I'll mail that out in > a separate mail. It certainly sounds like Ian's work is not of the kind we want to have to do twice. I doubt, however, that we can complete a design that would allow us to not have to do it at all in a useful time frame. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
