Re: Yet another 2 patches for music streams

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Erik Sandberg schreef:
> > Also, in general,  I think it should be possible to split patches up
> > further, eg. the tremolo stuff seems independent of the
> > partcombine/lyriccombine stuff.
>
> A problem is my limited internet access. I can cvs diff very seldom; I
> often work several days on lily between the diffs. This makes it
> difficult/troublesome to keep patches atomic.
>
> Currently I keep 3 copies of the lily tree, so I can maintain 2
> independent diff branches + one unmodified version; this already leads
> to problems (the tremolo stuff was first supposed to go into branch 2,
> but was accidentally added to branch 1 instead).

You might want to experiment with some of the newer VC systems. Someone 
on the list mirrors lilypond CVS with GIT.

> > >+         dir_ = RIGHT;
> > >+       }
> > >+      if (dir == STOP)
> > >+       {
>
> They don't represent the same thing. RIGHT means that the right
> beam-count is modified, STOP means that an event stops a spanner.

I know they don't, that's why I suggest to use different names.

> > > +      SCM tremolo_symbol = ly_symbol2scm ("TremoloSpanEvent");
> > >+      SCM start_event_scm = scm_call_2 (ly_lily_module_constant 
> > ("make-span-event"), tremolo_symbol, scm_from_int (START));
> > >+      unsmob_music (start_event_scm)->set_spot (*origin);
> > >+      SCM stop_event_scm = scm_call_2 (ly_lily_module_constant 
> > ("make-span-event"), tremolo_symbol, scm_from_int (STOP));
> > >+
> > >+      Music *start_event = unsmob_music (start_event_scm);
> > >+      Music *stop_event = unsmob_music (stop_event_scm);
> >
> > I think you're leaking memory here, some unprotects are necessary.
>
> The Music objects are created by SCM code, I thought stuff returned
> from Scheme was unprotected in general?

Yes, you're right. sorry.

> > I don't understand. What is this for?
>
> I don't remember right now (I added those lines last summer). It might
> be related to problems with grace notes, or somethign like that.
> Should I remove hte lines if I can't find a more clear justification?

Yes.

> > > -     (tremolo-type ,integer? "")
> > > +     (tremolo-type ,integer? "speed of tremolo, e.g. 16 for c4:16")
> >
> > hmm. That sucks, we should store the negative log (-4 for 16) rather
> > than 16.
>
> why negative? 

negative log of the duration, log2(1/16) = -4

> > > +#define LOWLEVEL_MAKE_SYNTAX(proc, args)     \
> > > +  scm_apply_0 (proc, args)
> > > +/* Syntactic Sugar. */
> > >  #define MAKE_SYNTAX(name, location, ...)     \
> > > -  scm_apply_0 (ly_lily_module_constant (name), scm_list_n 
> > (make_input (location), __VA_ARGS__, SCM_UNDEFINED));
> > > +  LOWLEVEL_MAKE_SYNTAX (ly_lily_module_constant (name), scm_list_n 
> > (make_input (location), __VA_ARGS__, SCM_UNDEFINED));
> > >
> >
> > I don't see the point of LOWLEVEL_MAKE_SYNTAX
>
> It was used for music functions first, then I found a different way to
> implement music functions. The macro can be used to use arbitrary
> function objects iso. symbols to represent functions.



> I think the proper way is to make it a music macro; is it OK to keep
> it a music function until music macros exist? (also, the music
> function code attempts to signal errors when \once is used in the
> wrong place, so from a user's point of view, little changes)

Why do you want to make it a macro?

> > >  (define-ly-syntax-loc (repeat type num body alts)
> > >    (make-repeat type num body alts))
> > > +
> > > +(define-ly-syntax-loc (context-specification type id mus ops 
> > create-new?)
> >
> > I believe that according to Scheme coding standards, the ? is only used
> > on procedures, so this should just be create-new.
>
> ok. I recall seeing a ? in an existing non-procedure symbol in lily;
> I'll remove it the next time I see it.

please do.


--

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

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com