Joe Neeman <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:06 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
[...] > The main issue with the page-breaking code is that finding the actual > outlines of systems is too expensive, so we use estimates which aren't > (and will probably never be) perfect. Estimates need not be perfect, but they may not be too optimistic. > The recent overfull-page issues stem from the fix for 496 (which fixed > a height overestimation issue and therefore exposed some height > underestimation issues). 4906be555c is an exception: it was caused by > a somewhat subtle bug that had been around for a while. But the fix > made sense, in that it fixed a genuine bug rather than papering over > something. [...] >> If it's not the case, there is an implementation problem, and >> patching around locally is going to make it harder to understand the >> code and to find the real issue. > > That depends. If the "local" patches fix mistakes without adding > complexity, I don't think they make the code harder to understand. As long as they fix mistakes rather than symptoms (namely: one can see where the _code_ went wrong, not just that the _result_ is wrong), I have no problem. > I believe that my last 3 patches to the page layout code (0f9645def2, > fcfbd212006 and 2bed451f9a) fall under this category. [...] > There may well be sign errors in the current code (there certainly > were some previously in the new layout code). However, I don't think > there is a single, glaring mistake underlying the recent page-layout > bugs since I don't believe that I've been pushing any "mysterious," > "covering-things-up" kind of patches. But if you find examples, I'm > happy to be corrected. I don't have the resources for that kind of research right now, so I just contributed my more or less keyword-triggered queasiness. Which is not a fair substitute. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
