[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond |
Date: |
Tue, 05 May 2020 17:45:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.36.2 |
Am Dienstag, den 05.05.2020, 17:09 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I am currently digging back and forth regarding implementation of our
> Smobs (Scheme objects) and garbage collection and STL, and I think I am
> converging on the realisation that we'll have to end up duplicating
> those parts of STL that we are using.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm missing a bit of context. Are we
talking about vector/lists/... of Smobs? Or is the issue that Smobs
contain STL containers?
In any case I'm not really fond of duplicating code. Given that it
seems to "work" right now, IMHO this needs to give some very clear
advantage over keeping the status quo.
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2020/05/05
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond,
Jonas Hahnfeld <=
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2020/05/05
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/05/06
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, Hans Åberg, 2020/05/06
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2020/05/06
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2020/05/06
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2020/05/07
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/05/07
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/07
- Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2020/05/07
Re: Almost, but not quite: C++ STL in LilyPond, Hans Åberg, 2020/05/05