On 24 October 2010 13:17, Valentin Villenave <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Neil Puttock <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 24 October 2010 12:32, Valentin Villenave <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Feel free to revert it. >> >> TBH, I'm sorely tempted to myself. > > Then please do. > >> There's a memory leak from `make-void-music', which suggests you >> haven't done a regression test check or run make doc. > > I have not, since the new function isn't used anywhere. > I didn't suspect a stupid music-function hack that is not invoked > anywhere could cause such things.
Well, to be fair, it's not the music function that's the problem; rather, you've neglected to make `make-void-music' a thunk, which means it's evaluated immediately music-functions.scm is loaded. >> I don't think it's appropriate to gulp files and evaluate code for >> this. > > I never said it was. Sure, I understand that (your comments in the music function suggest as much). > The only point was to make the patch as unnoticeable as possible, in > order to get it accepted. Believe me, I understand your frustration at waiting for GLISS to start, but a change like this needs a more considered approach which I don't think we can afford at the moment. > OK. Reverting. You can keep the `make-void-music' if you fix the bug (it just needs parentheses around the name). Cheers, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
