Re: Uses only unpure-pure containers to articulate unpure-pure relationships. (issue 7377046)

[dak]

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly
File input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly#newcode129
input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly:129:
side-position-interface::y-aligned-side)
I really don't understand why you ask on the developer list about
gratuitous prefix changes because of a different implementation language
when you propose such changes right afterwards.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc
File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc#newcode261
lily/axis-group-interface.cc:261: if (!g->is_live ())
Shouldn't you check for liveness before anything else?

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob-property.cc
File lily/grob-property.cc (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob-property.cc#newcode345
lily/grob-property.cc:345: if (is_simple_closure (unpure))
This is not related to this patch and review, but can anybody explain
why this simple_closure $#!+ can't be replaced by a callable closure
created using a smob type made callable via scm_set_smob_apply?  Is it
because of the delayed arg?  Can't we deal with that by using a fluid
(in Scheme, a parameter) in evaluate_with_simple_closure?  These pseudo
"simple" closures really make my head ache, and being able to throw all
of them out would be quite a boon.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob-scheme.cc
File lily/grob-scheme.cc (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob-scheme.cc#newcode454
lily/grob-scheme.cc:454: SCM_ASSERT_TYPE (ly_is_procedure (proc) ||
is_unpure_pure_container (proc), proc, SCM_ARG2, __FUNCTION__,
"procedure or unpure pure container");
Possibly worth a named type predicate of its own?

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob.cc
File lily/grob.cc (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/lily/grob.cc#newcode866
lily/grob.cc:866: if (to_boolean (scm_object_property
(me->get_property_data ("stencil"), ly_symbol2scm ("ly:stencil?"))))
Where is this object property being set?

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/scm/output-lib.scm
File scm/output-lib.scm (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/scm/output-lib.scm#newcode61
scm/output-lib.scm:61: (define-public
(grob::wrap-in-unpure-pure-container fn)
After issue 3200 passed, this is just ly:make-unpure-pure-container.
Remove, change all its callers.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/diff/17001/scm/output-lib.scm#newcode89
scm/output-lib.scm:89: (define-public
grob::always-vertical-skylines-from-stencil
I don't think that these are worth a definition of their own.  Better
expand them inline.  An unpure-pure container is cheap enough that
having separate containers for each use is not really a problem.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7377046/