Re: Adding scheme interfaces without using them?

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

> Well, you should at least add examples in the form of regtests, and in
> case of something like Bezier::solve_point it would make sense to take
> stock of what there is on the C++ side and see whether
> Bezier::solve_point would make sense as an integral part of a larger
> whole that gives a convenient toolbox in connection with other
> Bezier-related functionality, and then plot what that whole should
> entail.
>
> Basically try to aim for something making sense as a whole and not just
> for supporting your particular application that is so specialised that
> it does not make sense as a MR.

Thanks, will do. (Also thanks to Jean for reminding me of the 
semi-related discussion of Valentin's MR.)

In this case, I think it's almost the other way around: Since Jean 
removed the duplication of bezier-related code in C++ and Scheme, we 
have lily/bezier-scheme.ly, which consists only of wrappers around 
Bezier::extract and Bezier::extent. And to be honest, I rather think 
that Bezier::extract is actually not that useful without 
Bezier::solve_point (but I know that Mike managed to make good use of 
the former without needing the latter in his code for woodwind diagrams).

Lukas