[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm
|
From: |
Patrick McCarty |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question) |
|
Date: |
Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:30:58 -0700 |
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Mark Polesky <address@hidden> wrote:
> Patrick McCarty wrote:
>> I don't know if there is any performance penalty, but it's probably
>> negligible. You could propose that these procedures be made public; I
>> am okay with it.
>
> Then if no one has any reservations, does anyone want to apply this?
The patch looks good to me.
The "print-book-with" procedure is pretty specialized, but I don't see
any harm in making it public.
-Patrick
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question),
Patrick McCarty <=
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Neil Puttock, 2009/06/07
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/07
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/14
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Joe Neeman, 2009/06/15
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Jay Anderson, 2009/06/17
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public, Mark Polesky, 2009/06/17
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Jay Anderson, 2009/06/23
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/23
- Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/23