[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-music-discuss] Inheritance?

From: David R. Linn
Subject: Re: [Gnu-music-discuss] Inheritance?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:48:10 -0500 (CDT)

>> From: Scott Ballantyne <address@hidden>
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>> > The model evolved guided by our attempts to improve the implementation
>> > of lily. There is no design, other than trying to be `concise,
>> > elegant, flexible'
>> > 
>> ... It looks like lexical scoping rather
>> than dynamic binding is the order of the day in lilypond, and I wonder
>> if over all, from the user perspective, if it wouldn't be better ---
>> simpler if a different binding method were used. Perhaps message
>> passing would improve the situation.

I have read over what you (Scott) wrote several times and have tried
unsuccessfully to see a situation where dynamic scoping would be better
(in *any* way) to lexical scoping.  I can accept this as a shortcoming
of my own imagination so I ask, "Can you elaborate on places where
you think dynamic scoping would be better?"  Also, can you elaborate
on where you think a message passing interface would work better (presumbably
better than the current "inheritance" method (sometimes simply called
"grouping" in other context)?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]