[Forgot to cc' the list]
Hi Carl,
I agree that it's not much of a problem here, but I still think it's better
to use the LilyPond idiom assoc-get instead of the more general Scheme idiom
assoc.
dumb question: Why is assoc-get "LilyPond idiom"?
grep "(assoc " scm/* | wc - l
68
grep "(assoc-get " scm/* | wc -l
45
I've used an other solution now ("get-value") with the benefit to also
output a programming error and the price to be used only in this part of
code. What do you think? I don't really like the idea of quietly setting
a value to a default if the absence of the value is a real error. (and
not a normal case that has to be treated)
I think there are many other "unsecure" computations in the scm-code
else, too. They normally don't matter, but if the code is modified some
errors could be found more easily if programming_errors would be
outputted. I don't know if it's worth the effort, though.
http://codereview.appspot.com/115065/diff/1013/14
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
