On 2015/02/18 18:07:19, dak wrote:
On 2015/02/18 18:05:17, david.nalesnik wrote: > On 2015/02/18 18:02:38, dak wrote: > > On 2015/02/18 17:53:44, david.nalesnik wrote: > > > Please review. Thanks! > > > > Can't this be done just as easily in Scheme? > > Sure--that crossed my mind. The reason I went with C++ is so that
it would be
> documented prominently, but I could change it if that's not a
sufficient
reason.
It should not be a sufficient reason. Document-string it just as you
would the
C++ version, and we'll need to come up with a good way to pull those
into the
internals manual anyway.
OK, will do. https://codereview.appspot.com/197690044/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
