On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 08:39:37PM +0000, Keith OHara wrote: > Probably that was Dan's intent, but I would not add it, because there is no > behavior of LilyPond to test.
That's never stopped us before. I don't want this to get lost, but... > If no-one suggests differently I'll add an initialization in a couple days, > along with fixing a couple other un-initialized variables. ... if you have a patch ready (or almost ready), then we can skip the administration. IMO, please push any patch that initializes variables as long as they don't break a regtest. In the worst case, you would just introduce a reproducible bug, instead of having us "rely" on having an uninitialized variable. (if you notice broken regtests as a result of your patch, then let's discuss it before pushing) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
