El 29/12/2011 15:50, "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> escribió: > > David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > > > Ian Hulin <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> On 29/12/11 11:13, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> Comment #6 on issue 2149 by [email protected]: Patch: Creates > >>> non-negative-integer? predicate. > >>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2149 > >>> > >>> I'll change it to whatever people think would be easiest - I really > >>> have no preference, but I do think it's important to have a > >>> user-friendly predicate if LilyPond is to use the box-integral > >>> method to create vertical skylines for other objects. > >> Why not call it /positive-integer?/ and state in the docstring it defines > >> any integer i where i >= 0 as positive. > >> Or if you want to stick to Guiles /positive?/, maybe use > >> /positive-integer-or-zero?/. > >> > >> Predicate names seem to work better if they describe what they're > >> testing for rather than what's being avoided. > >> <Bad pun alert> > >> It's better of they're positive . . . > >> </Bad pun alert> > > > > Really, I would just use "count?" here and save "a positive integer or > > zero" for the documentation string. > > Or at least unsigned-integer? which is slightly less cumbersome. >
Or integer-size? Sizes can be zero. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
