Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 10/19/11 3:26 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>\void #(hashq-set! ...)
>>>\void #(hashq-set! ...)
>>>
>>>rather than
>>>
>>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...)
>>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...)
>>>
>>>It's a bit C-ish, but not all that bad, and it fits with
>>>define-void-function.
>>
>> \returnUnspecified #(hashq-set! ...)
>>
>> \scmUnspecified #(hashq-set! ...)
>>
>> \ignoreReturn #(hashq-set! ...)
>>
>> After all I can think of, I think \void is probably the best.
>
> I am not enthused about this particular consequence of auto-exporting
> Scheme expressions.  I currently don't see a better way of handling it,
> and it has flagged more bad code than false positives when I tried it.
> But I would be quite surprised if it did not trigger regressions with
> existing previously valid and reasonable code.

An afterthought, however: we do have an inordinate amount of user-level
commands that need to be called from Scheme rather than with Lilypond
syntax.  That does not make sense.  Void music functions have been
around for eternities, just a bit inconvenient to define, but reasonably
documented.

Maybe we need a user interface meister that tries to maintain a bit of
coherency and sanity when new features get added.

-- 
David Kastrup