On 2/27/09 11:53 AM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" <reinh...@kainhofer.com> wrote:
>>
>> Marek -- can you check to make sure the code doesn't break if -1 is
>> specified as a suffix? I'm afraid that would pass as an integer, but not
>> pass as >0, so nothing would happen.
>
> Actually, that's not true. -1 will be the key for the lookup in the alist...
> There is no comparison with the actual suffix, just with the value that was
> looked up from the alist, so I don't think that case would be a problem.
>
>
Doh! You're right, of course. I misread the code, and didn't catch exactly
how output-count worked. Thanks for straightening me out.
Carl
>>> What about set! versus ly:parser-define! ?
>
> I would rather use ly:parser-define!, if we can find out why it doesn't work.
> It's simply cleaner than using a global variable...
>
>
>> Also, this code needs a regtest, IMO. But the difference in the code will
>> be in the names of the files produced, rather than the graphical output.
>> Will this still be caught by make-check?
>
> Good question. I have absolutely no idea, though.
>
>> P.S. Marek, you'll need to write a regression test and a documentation
>> change to go along with the code change before it can be pushed.
>
> Yes, that's also quite some work, but it gives you a good insight into the
> whole lilypond distribution...
> What I usually do is to simply search the whole lilypond directory for the
> keyword (output-suffix in this case) and check all files where that keyword
> appears manually to see whether any of them needs some updates, too.
>
> You can ignore all files in directories called out/ or out-www/.
git grep is a good way to do this; it only checks input or source files and
ignores any generated files.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
