Re: Call for help with bar lines

[Marc Hohl]

Am 26.09.2012 12:23, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Am 26.09.2012 11:47, schrieb address@hidden:
> >
> > > I unfortunately don't have much time to help you out, but I can tell
> > > you that you are on the right track doing prints to the command
> > > line.  I would not, however, stash them in lambda functions used as
> > > overrides, as this can sometimes interfere with pure properties.
> > Thanks for the hint, but I assume that this is not the case here,
> > where I wrap ly:bar-line::print into
> > a callback ...
> _I_ wouldn't dare competing against Mike in a purity test.  Unless you
> know your way inside/out of pure/impure containers and stuff, it might
> really be worth a try to check out his debugging suggestion.
Ok, ok. To be honest, the pure/impure stuff is not something I understand
in full ...
> In a different vein, I have the impression that we might need to revisit
> the programming model if we want to have a chance of more than 2 people
> ever being able to work successfully on/with the backend.
I am not sure whether I understand your proposal correctly, but I am
working on this for quite a long time, so I don't have strong feelings
about rewriting the whole interface again (to be honest: the first
presentation of the idea had a very lively discussion whether the thick
bar line should be represented by '.' or 'I', but nothing more – one may
this read as "the interface is ok, but not the glyph you use" and that's
how I understand it, because the other possibility is "I don't care", and
I *do* hope that people care about the bar line stuff).

Furthermore, I tried to comment the whole stuff very carefully, so
I don't think that the backend is not understandable at all.
>