[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: untangling the remaining regressions
From: |
Mike Solomon |
Subject: |
Re: untangling the remaining regressions |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:03:52 +0300 |
On 13 août 2013, at 11:59, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The short term solution may be to create an internal property called
>> "pure-relevant", set it to #t as default for all grobs in the
>> Grob::Grob constructor and set to false only when necessary in
>> define-grobs.cc. Then, write a big fat comment saying that the goal
>> eventually is to remove this test and make sure to say that the
>> property is _strictly_ internal.
>>
>> This is more elegant than the Scheme functions in the old
>> implementation but less elegant than the currently (albeit broken)
>> solution of removing the pure-relevant distinction.
>
> It's window dressing on bugs if the design does actually work properly,
That's exactly what this is, but it allows us to isolate the bug and put a big
TODO.
>
>> I can do this tonight - does this sound like a reasonable
>> middle-ground solution?
>
> No. Two half-solutions don't make a full one.
>
Conceptually, in the previous code, Scheme functions combed through a slew of
hard-coded lists in order to determine if a grob was pure relevant. I am
proposing making this one property, which allows us to keep the new system.
That seems more elegant than the previous implementation. Then, the only
remaining task is improving pure-property calculations so that they don't
trigger unpure calculations.
Cheers,
MS
Re: untangling the remaining regressions, David Kastrup, 2013/08/13
Re: untangling the remaining regressions, Keith OHara, 2013/08/22