"m...@apollinemike.com" <m...@apollinemike.com> writes: > On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:12 PM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote: > >> >> Comment #90 on issue 2148 by d...@gnu.org: vertical skylines should >> use stencil integrals >> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2148 >> >> If transparency is not supposed to have an impact anymore, why do we >> still have different callbacks for "maybe-transparent" stencils even >> in the latest iteration? If this is dead code, it should be >> removed. There should only be one callback, and it should not look >> at transparency. >> > > Because I haven't pushed my tabVoice code yet. It doesn't have an > impact in the regression tests you're talking about, but it would have > an impact in all of the tab regtests.
Yes, it has an impact on the tab regtests. That's how I noticed that transparency _has_ an impact still. > Once I push the tabVoice patch, I'll be able to get rid of this code. Please don't let your code attempt to mask unrelated bugs. It makes it harder to understand and review and means that the unrelated bugs will get harder to diagnose and fix _properly_, and that the interactions with your code _after_ they get fixed get very hard to find and remove. It makes it likely that the need for a proper fix for the original bug will get overlooked, and it makes it likely that the necessity of removing the workaround afterwards will get overlooked. And it complicated the review and makes it likely that it gets entangled in code that should not be there anyway. It is a triple recipe for trouble, and that only in order to make the regtests appear better temporarily for no good reason. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
