On 2012/07/19 17:25:45, dak wrote:
On 2012/07/19 17:12:21, Keith wrote:
> Again, I suggest first committing the code in a state that
> merely fixes the reported bugs about warnings,
One could remove line 264 in slur.cc
Simpler to finish the loop over j at line 227, similarly to the ver2.14
code, with
if (j < old_slurs)
ev->origin ()->warning (_ ("already have slur"));
start_events_.erase (start_events_.begin () + i);
break;
}
and there is no point in first making the less convenient decision.
The point is to separate the fix to one regression (1967) from code that
causes another regression (2584). Linked strings of regressions make it
/look/ more difficult than it really is to fall back to a state free of
known regressions.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6432047/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
