Thanks for the reviews, g
https://codereview.appspot.com/573500043/diff/561420043/lily/beam-quanting.cc File lily/beam-quanting.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/573500043/diff/561420043/lily/beam-quanting.cc#newcode1049 lily/beam-quanting.cc:1049: configs.clear (); On 2020/02/03 17:57:52, hahnjo wrote: > I think you don't need this: If a vector goes out of scope, it will call the > destructor of all elements still present. I didn't want to investigate the consequences of deferring deletion to the end of the scope. https://codereview.appspot.com/573500043/diff/561420043/lily/system-start-delimiter-engraver.cc File lily/system-start-delimiter-engraver.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/573500043/diff/561420043/lily/system-start-delimiter-engraver.cc#newcode149 lily/system-start-delimiter-engraver.cc:149: (new Bracket_nesting_staff (0))); On 2020/02/03 17:57:52, hahnjo wrote: > Can you check if > children_.emplace_back (new Bracket_nesting_staff (0)); > works? This would be much neater It compiles, but it raises its own flag to reviewers because it does not show that the new object is managed by a smart pointer. If I had C++14, I would have used std::make_unique<Bracket_nesting_staff> (0) to avoid repeating the class name. We can define our own make_unique if we want to, but I don't think it should be done in this patch. https://codereview.appspot.com/573500043/
