Re: \apply nest-props Re: constructive criticism

[Nicolas Sceaux]

Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:58:44 +0100, Han-Wen a dit : 

 > [...]
 > However, a newbie like me finds it a little confusing when functions
 > and macros follow similar naming conventions. I would propose some
 > kind of naming scheme, such that you can tell whether a symbol
 > represents a macro or a function.

I'm not sure that's really an issue. Documentation usually tells
that. But that's true that the name often give clue about whether an
"operator" is a macro or a function: for instance `with-something', or
`def-foo' are usually macros. In any case, before using an (unknown)
operator, one looks its documentation, and sees its nature. Or when
you embed a mini language on top of scheme, such as the markup
generation utility I wrote: 
  (markup (#:large "hello") (#:italic "world"))
you can be sure that there are macros here. It's often predictable.

 > Yes, def-markup-command would very cool. Can you do that?

I'll take a try on it.

 > Probably something similar goes for the grob-property-description
 > function.

Absolutely.
And the same goes for all-grob-descriptions:

(def-grob-description Accidental
  "Perhaps a documentation for that here"
  ;; first, the (meta (interface . (...))) field:
  (item-interface accidental-interface font-interface) 
  ;; then, other field definitions:
  (molecule-callback Accidental_interface::brew_molecule)
  (font-family 'music)
  (cautionary-style 'parentheses)
  (after-line-breaking-callback Accidental_interface::after_line_breaking))

for instance. etc.

nicolas