LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/4278058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2011/03/22 06:28:42, joeneeman wrote:
In that case, a better way to avoid too many warnings might
be just to add a static bool to check if a warning has already
been issued.
Done, and removed the original code that had no effect.
Given that the old code merely printed warning, the warning
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4278058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:46:51 -0700, Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com
wrote:
It might cause problems if pure is true. When the method is called with
pure, it shouldn't cause any side effects. For a concrete example, this
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:06:12 -0700, Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, if I protect the assignment to the property with an if
(!pure), I am letting the page-breaking planning rely on the user-requested
affinities, and then changing them for the page-layout phase. The
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:06:12 -0700, Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unfortunately, if I protect the assignment to the property with an if
(!pure), I am letting the page-breaking planning rely on the
On 2011/03/20 07:45:11, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:17:48 -0700, Joe Neeman
mailto:joenee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:58 PM, mailto:k-ohara5...@oco.net
wrote:
In that case, is there any need to set after_affinity at all?
I could ask the author of the original
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:46:51 -0700, Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com wrote:
It might cause problems if pure is true. When the method is called with
pure, it shouldn't cause any side effects. For a concrete example, this
will mess up if you have
Staff
Lyrics with affinity down
Staff that
On 2011/03/18 11:22:11, Trevor Daniels wrote:
LGTM
I like this warning text. Much better.
Trevor
Applying the patch gave the following:
/home/colin/lilypond-git/lily/page-layout-problem.cc: In member function
'void Page_layout_problem::solve_rod_spring_problem(bool)':
Reviewers: Trevor Daniels, Colin Campbell,
Message:
On 2011/03/19 23:37:50, Colin Campbell wrote:
error: expected ';'
Oops. I guess you can't teach an old dog to use a new editor.
Fixed, and I hope people do try it, because this method of suppressing
the repeated warnings changes the output.
LGTM.
I can't think of a case where updating `after' would cause problems -
this seems like a good solution.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4278058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:03 PM, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
LGTM.
I can't think of a case where updating `after' would cause problems -
this seems like a good solution.
It might cause problems if pure is true. When the method is called with
pure, it shouldn't cause any side effects. For a
LGTM
I like this warning text. Much better.
Trevor
http://codereview.appspot.com/4278058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
13 matches
Mail list logo
