Nicolas Sceaux writes: > > I like the stylistic patches.
/me too, gives warm fuzzy feelings and saves me a bit of work. > > Jan always complains of my style, and > > he's probably right, but if you clean up after me, it frees me to do > > interesting stuff :-). Still, but I would prefer to handle them > > separately, i.e. try not to mix stylistic and real changes. Yes, I would agree, but that's also a bit hard to do. I've decided that it is easiest and most satisfying for me to just rigorously fix any style bugs that I happen to encounter near POINT instead of letting them annoy me, when editing a file (much like Nicolas does). Doing style fixes separately requires quite a bit of dicipline and means extra work (resolving conflicts). It makes little sense to 'just remember' the files that need style fixes, and fix them in another CVS tree: then it feels more like a LilyPond janitor job, and looking at it that way: why not clean-up another file? How about a starting small scale janitor project? > Should indentation be tabified, or untabified (I refer to the emacs > commands)? This time, I have done a C-x h M-x tabify, but in previous > patches, they were untabified. I don't think we have a policy for this. What do you suggest. > When a pattern is encountered a few times, it is common pratice to > write a macro that will expand to that pattern. [..] > which imho improves readability. Although that's not purely > stylistic, are you interested in such changes? Yes, go for it. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
