On 30 October 2010 08:39, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be sufficient to handle SCM_UNDEFINED in > type_check_assignment?
I don't think so. Unlike SCM_EOL or SCM_BOOL_F it doesn't have an analogue in Scheme code. > Or is there a deeper problem? I think so. Perhaps there's a callback returning SCM_UNDEFINED by mistake or forgetting to change an undefined default to something sane. Cheers, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
