On 12/3/09 11:35 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes:
>
>> On 12/3/09 10:54 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>> A (slightly different) fix has already been pushed.
>>>
>>> I might add, a fix that is much more complex, uses more variables, uses
>>> more code, and checks conditions multiple times in different code paths.
>>>
>>> Your patch increases the line count. Mine reduces it.
>>>
>>> That does not mean that my patch can't be improved.
>>>
>>> It definitely needs to get the robust_scm2double(default_outside_staff,
>>> 0) fix from the version you pushed. While the regression tests don't
>>> catch that yet, it definitely is an issue. And it will be better to
>>> revert the condition of the if to (last == 0) and consequently
>>> interchange the then/else branches. That way the short code path comes
>>> first, the structure is more apparent, and the reading order corresponds
>>> better with the execution order.
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> Roll a patch and post it for comments on Rietveld.
>
> I am still in need of actual tests (or at least working recipes for
> reproducing the problems reported with earlier versions) of the memory
> situation of the patch I put a week ago on Rietveld. Putting another
> there would be a distraction.
>
> I have been told by Graham that the segfault from script-column.cc was
> what precluded reviews of my older patch set. So I addressed that.
> Even though there was no report in the bug tracker to go by.
>
> But I certainly will not invest a lot of work, upload, branch creation,
> discussion whatever because you are not interested in making your fix
> cleaner after being told how.
Fair enough. I apologize for replying too soon and too short.
>
> Your first commit did not even compile. If you don't jump through any
> review hoops for your code, why should I for _your_ code?
Yes, and then I posted another patch on Rietveld, because I recognized my
mistakes. I did not see any comment from you on that patch.
That's why I responded inappropriately. Again, I'm not justifying, just
explaining. I'll review the issue some more.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
