Hi David,
2013/9/24 <[email protected]>:
> Do you have an actual problem with how the new code is
> written in comparison to the old code?
No, not at all! I apologize for not making my intentions clearer. I
asked for an example not because i doubted your patch - i just wanted
to have some output to look at, so that i would understand the patch
better. I actually haven't read the code yet - as you know, i'm not
fluent with Scheme, and i expected that i wouldn't manage to
understand the patch without having some example. I'm sorry that my
question made you anxious.
> I sometimes have a hard time
> understanding why people object against refactoring code even when the
> old code has been prodded until it happens to turn out the correct thing
> most of the time without anybody exactly knowing why.
This situation occasionally happens to me as well, and i don't
understand it either.
> But assuming that this code would not actually fix anything but lead to
> equivalent results: would you object to it?
No, absolutely not! I know that you're a much better programmer that
i am, so unless i'd find something explicitely suspicious (which is
unlikely) i would never object to code refactoring.
> "It works" is not the ultimate excuse for everything. Because if no-one
> can understand _why_ it works, then even in the case that it works in
> 100% of all cases now, future changes might break it unintentionally
> when nobody can understand the reason it works.
Absolutely!
> Issue 3552 is such a case where I changed code not because of any known
> breakage, but because the risk of future breakage in connection with
> superficially unrelated and/or user code.
That's a good reason to change things.
> On 2013/09/24 07:46:17, janek wrote:
>> could you give an example of how it was failing before?
>
> Regtests change, and the new regtests seem pretty consistent. I was not
> going to measure this out in detail. The comments of the old code also
> spell out a failure case. Check out
> \markuplist
> #(map (lambda (n)
> #{ \markup
> \override #'(line-width . 60)
> \column {
> \override #`(text-direction . ,(if (zero? (remainder n 2))
> RIGHT LEFT))
> \justify { $@(map number->string (iota (quotient n 2))) }
> \draw-hline
> }
> #})
> (iota 160 60))
>
> and you'll see that the old code has problems in the patterns ending on
> 85 and 104.
Thanks, this should help me understand what's going on.
Interestingly, with current master (bfdebcb93bebe820c2d5fd6c1bed) the
pattern ending with 104 appears to be fine.
best,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
