[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Should we be touching goops?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Should we be touching goops?
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 03:34:19 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Aaron Hill <> writes:

> On 2022-06-06 5:24 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Putting a bit more meat on what this may mean:
>> <>
> This certainly lends some brevity being able to use operators rather
> than named procedures.  Providing all this is firstly correct and
> secondly reasonably performant, it seems like a good addition.
> That said, I did find one surprise looking at [1].  I would not have
> expected 1+ (increment) to work without some way of Scheme knowing how
> to construct unity for a given type.  Am I just overlooking where such
> a <Moment> is being specified?  Or is there supposed to be a
> type-specific overload of 1+?  I am worried something might not have
> gotten committed.
> [1]:

1+ works on a plain number here.

(define-method (/ (a <Moment>) (b <Moment>)) (ly:moment-main (ly:moment-div a 

I saw no point in letting the division of Moments deliver a Moment like
ly:moment-div does, so ly:moment-main fetches the resulting rational.
Returning a Moment would be just meaningless.  While I objected to
distinguishing time spans from time points by type, that does not mean
that I am in favor of completely insane type relations for new

What may actually be a surprising simplification is

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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