"Keith OHara" <[email protected]> writes: > But I think we can remove the 'start'/'end' parameters from 'pure' > functions for Items. Items have a 'pure' version of their functions > as a way to promise that these functions *not* depend on > line-breaking.
While this sort of sentence sends up all warning flags for me regarding future use, it's not really a concern. For dynamic dependency tracking, one needs to record accesses to start/end anyway. I was planning on providing start/end via fluid-based setters/getters but if the current code does not actually want them anyway, that makes the refactoring easier. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
