Am 05.07.2012 08:14, schrieb Joe Neeman:


On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:37 AM, m...@apollinemike.com <mailto:m...@apollinemike.com> <m...@apollinemike.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
The function Bar_line::non_empty_barline is defined in lily/bar-line.cc. After handling the stuff concerning issue 1320 this would be the only remaining function in bar-line.cc so the idea was to move these
remaining five lines of code into scheme, too.

If there is an alternative where I can put the funtion in, I can drop the conversion c++->scheme.

Since both possibilities exceed my knowledge, I have to rely on experts ...

Regards,

Marc

Cheers,
Joe




_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Reply via email to