On 2012/06/06 06:24:22, Keith wrote:
Thanks, I think.
Not much cause for it, I am afraid. You were right in the original "fix" from me not having correctly guessed the scope of the problem, and your main idea of just ignoring immediate duplicates was probably the most straightforward approach. I submitted a more thorough version of that approach (and tried taking direction into account as well) and tried to keep the regtests comparable. But while I hijacked the credit for creating the "proper" fix of the code, the credit for fixing my head in this case, arguably the harder task, lies with you. Apologies for that bunch of pettiness. http://codereview.appspot.com/6272046/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
