On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote Monday, April 04, 2011 6:13 AM
>
>> I think it is good that these are fixed, but not important enough to
>> spend serious time on finding and plugging all of them. The question
>> is how much of the code we should consider user-serviceable. If one
>> C++ part of Lily passes data using Scheme types to another C++ part,
>> should that other part be resistent users inserting bogus values into
>> that internal channel ?
>
> Can we distinguish code that is publicly accessible in Scheme? Or
> maybe those routines that are advertised in the docs. If so, it is these
> that need to be robust. I would not be worried by segfaults in anything
> that is accessible only via a local build. Anyone building LP can surely
> handle segfaults themselves. But users struggling with Scheme need
> all the help we can provide.
>
> Trevor
>
I've gotten one LGTM on the 3-ish line patch patch I proposed. Could I please
have either a second "LGTM" or a "please don't push."
http://codereview.appspot.com/4339047/
I agree with Trevor that, for common tweaks (i.e. ones advertised in the docs),
LilyPond shouldn't segfault.
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
