Re: Preferred use of define-grob-properties.scm

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> > Since not every tuning property is useful, our current strategy is to
> > hard-code most constants, except for paddings and thicknesses (and
> > other parameters that we imagine to be changed frequently), and
> > respond to any request for more tunability by adding another property.
> > 
> 
> I'd be very willing to change over to constants rather than properties. 
> I put everything in as properties because in the source code I was
> reviewing, every time there was a constant there was a comment ";;urg". 
> It appeared to me that your programming style wanted no constants.

Our thoughts on this matter aren't entirely set in stone. Since you've
already added a lot of properties, we can't save precious development
time by not using properties :-) Maybe you could review all of them,
and prune the ones which are surely not user-serviceable.


> Is the preferred method of using constants to define named constants,
> then use those named constants in the code?  If so, should the named
> constants just be defined at the top of fret-diagrams.scm?

Good question - there is no preferred method yet, but perhaps your
proposal is a good idea.

> 

-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen