Re: Rewriting x11-color.scm

[Mark Polesky]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Neil Puttock wrote:
> > Very nice. :)
> >
> > A good (but tedious) test of whether it's impacting on compile
> > times would be to compare doc builds with and without the
> > changes, since there are so many LilyPond invocations for the
> > snippets.
> >
>
> It sure looks nice, but since x11-color.scm is basically dumb
> data, this change introduces more places where bugs could hide.

Han-Wen,

What kind of bugs? Are you saying you'd definitively prefer that I
leave it alone? My initial point of departure was the desire to
clean up NR B.5 "List of colors", which 
a) is organized in a way that makes it hard to look up colors, and
b) contains several errors that I was intending to fix.
 
In the course of my attempts to systematically identify all the
errors in that appendix, I looked at x11-color.scm, but the "dumb
data" was of very little help. It was very hard to look at the
source and see what was going on. So I experimented with a clearer
format, and I'd like to think my modifications represent an
improvement.

Personally, I would say my revision is "flexible" rather than
"bug-friendly". And I would say the current version is more
"obfuscated", even though it is technically correct. I believe
that code should be transparent and easy to trust. Right now it's
impossible to determine if any errors exist in the current version
just by looking at it. And that's what I don't like.

Ultimately, I'll accept whatever position you maintain. Anything
else would presumptuous!

Let me know.
- Mark