Re: untangling the remaining regressions

[Mike Solomon]

On 13 août 2013, at 11:59, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> The short term solution may be to create an internal property called
>> "pure-relevant", set it to #t as default for all grobs in the
>> Grob::Grob constructor and set to false only when necessary in
>> define-grobs.cc.  Then, write a big fat comment saying that the goal
>> eventually is to remove this test and make sure to say that the
>> property is _strictly_ internal.
>> 
>> This is more elegant than the Scheme functions in the old
>> implementation but less elegant than the currently (albeit broken)
>> solution of removing the pure-relevant distinction.
> 
> It's window dressing on bugs if the design does actually work properly,

That's exactly what this is, but it allows us to isolate the bug and put a big 
TODO.

> 
>> I can do this tonight - does this sound like a reasonable
>> middle-ground solution?
> 
> No.  Two half-solutions don't make a full one.
> 

Conceptually, in the previous code, Scheme functions combed through a slew of 
hard-coded lists in order to determine if a grob was pure relevant.  I am 
proposing making this one property, which allows us to keep the new system.  
That seems more elegant than the previous implementation.  Then, the only 
remaining task is improving pure-property calculations so that they don't 
trigger unpure calculations.

Cheers,
MS