Re: Should we be touching goops?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-06-06 6:19 pm, Aaron Hill wrote:
> That said, I did find one surprise looking at [1].  I would not have
> expected 1+ (increment) to work without some way of Scheme knowing how
> to construct unity for a given type.  Am I just overlooking where such
> a <Moment> is being specified?  Or is there supposed to be a
> type-specific overload of 1+?  I am worried something might not have
> gotten committed.
>
> [1]:
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/1404/diffs?commit_id=bafd55131495ad58d8c9eb4439f60c8789bc9dc8#98b870cc087eeb4becf470fa3ec9b05b85962f2f_115_109

Ah, never mind.  I thought division was producing a <Moment> as the 
result.  Looks like it is just a normal rational number, which would 
already support increment.

This might be worth documenting: which types support which operators and 
what types the results are.  I am probably not going to be the only one 
caught off guard.


-- Aaron Hill