On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:37 AM, m...@apollinemike.com <
m...@apollinemike.com> wrote:
> On 4 juil. 2012, at 20:10, Marc Hohl wrote:
>
> > Am 04.07.2012 13:29, schrieb David Kastrup:
> >> Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes:
> >>
> >>> Hello list,
> >>>
> >>> the topic is somewhat over my head, but perhaps someone with more
> >>> insight can answer this question?
> >> I think that gcc likely can, don't know about g++, and we don't want to
> >> rely on it anyhow.
> > Ok.
> >
> > Well then, is there an alternative?
> >
> > I want to get rid of bar-line.cc (issue 1320), and I have managed to get
> all
> > definitions but Bar_line::non_empty_barline into scheme.
> >
> > In lily/note-spacing.cc, I have
> >
> > Grob *bar = Pointer_group_interface::find_grob (right_col,
> > ly_symbol2scm
> ("elements"),
> > Bar_line::non_empty_barline);
> >
> > The simple approach
> >
> > bool non_empty_barline =
> > ly_scm2bool (scm_call_1 (ly_lily_module_constant
> ("bar-line::non-empty-barline"), right_col->self_scm ()));
> >
> > with
> >
> > (define-public (bar-line::non-empty-barline grob)
> > (and (grob::has-interface grob 'bar-line)
> > (pair? (ly:grob-extent grob grob X))))
> >
> > doesn't work.
> >
> I just realized that there's an easier way to do this w/ existing code
> conventions. You can overload Pointer_group_interface::find_grob so that
> it accepts a simple closure as the third argument. Then, wrap the Scheme
> function in a simple closure.
>
>
Why not just leave the function in C++? I have nothing against porting
things to scheme, but in this case it just seems like an exercise in making
things more complicated, for no gain.
Cheers,
Joe
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
