Re: Preferred use of define-grob-properties.scm

[Carl Sorensen]

On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 02:59, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> looking through your patch, I have the impression that you have a lot
> of properties. Having everything tweakable seems nice at first, but it
> makes the program more difficult to understand (as it pollutes the
> namespace for properties) and impacts performance negatively.
> 
> Since not every tuning property is useful, our current strategy is to
> hard-code most constants, except for paddings and thicknesses (and
> other parameters that we imagine to be changed frequently), and
> respond to any request for more tunability by adding another property.
> 

I'd be very willing to change over to constants rather than properties. 
I put everything in as properties because in the source code I was
reviewing, every time there was a constant there was a comment ";;urg". 
It appeared to me that your programming style wanted no constants.

Is the preferred method of using constants to define named constants,
then use those named constants in the code?  If so, should the named
constants just be defined at the top of fret-diagrams.scm?

> 
> (oh, btw, good work - but applying patches is starting to get
> tedious. Are you willing to look into getting CVS access?)

I'd be very happy to get CVS access.  How do I proceed?

Thanks,

Carl