Hi David,
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
[snip detailed explanation]
thanks for explaining and sorry for not looking this up myself - i'm
short on time and thus i do all reviews in a hurry...
The commit message might be misleading, however, since it sounds like it
is
On 2012/11/05 22:45:06, thomasmorley65 wrote:
On 2012/11/05 22:40:36, lemzwerg wrote:
Very nice!
Can't review the code.
But from description:
GREAT
The same in my case...
David, could you add a comment (either to the parser code, or in the
commit message) that explains why the old code
On 2012/11/08 08:28:40, janek wrote:
On 2012/11/05 22:45:06, thomasmorley65 wrote:
On 2012/11/05 22:40:36, lemzwerg wrote:
Very nice!
Can't review the code.
But from description:
GREAT
The same in my case...
David, could you add a comment (either to the parser code, or in the
commit
Very nice!
http://codereview.appspot.com/6812088/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2012/11/05 22:40:36, lemzwerg wrote:
Very nice!
Can't review the code.
But from description:
GREAT
http://codereview.appspot.com/6812088/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Reviewers: lemzwerg, thomasmorley65,
Message:
On 2012/11/05 22:45:06, thomasmorley65 wrote:
On 2012/11/05 22:40:36, lemzwerg wrote:
Very nice!
Can't review the code.
But from description:
GREAT
It's actually more a fix of a shortcoming. Scheme functions should have
worked in most places
