Re: Issue 2376 in lilypond: Automatic footnotes on \null markups causes unexpected results

[lilypond]

Comment #9 on issue 2376 by address@hidden: Automatic footnotes on \null  
markups causes unexpected results
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2376

I've taken a look at the Scheme functions for stencils, and they basically  
_all_ create copies whenever they operate on a stencil.  It appears that  
stencils are simple smobs (you don't work with self_scm () but rather  
smobbed_copy).

So it does not really make sense to have constants like the null and the  
empty stencil be functions: all of the Scheme-level accessors create their  
own copies.  If the footnote code does not do this (and presumably it uses  
C++ for wreaking its havoc), that is the fault of the footnote code for not  
keeping with the design principles of stencils.  We should fix it there  
instead of causing unnecessary pain everywhere else.  It does not appear to  
me like stencils are intended to be modifiable objects in the first place.