2011/5/28 <carl.d.soren...@gmail.com>: > On 2011/05/28 16:13:43, benko.pal wrote: >> >> aargh, that's not too readable. >> what I actually suggest is replacing lines 204-207 of > >> > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4490045/diff/12001/lily/completion-note-heads-engraver.cc >> >> > File lily/completion-note-heads-engraver.cc (right): > >> 204 if ((left_to_do_ - note_dur.get_length ()) > Rational (0)) >> 205 event->set_property("autosplit-end", ly_bool2scm (true)); >> 206 else >> 207 event->set_property("autosplit-end", ly_bool2scm (false)); > >> by > >> event->set_property ("autosplit-end", >> ly_bool2scm (left_to_do_ - note_dur.get_length () > > > 0)); > >> Pal > > That was the original code. It was pointed out (see Neil's comment > above) that the only check on this is whether or not it is greater than > zero, so a boolean works. Hence, the code was changed to use a boolean.
I must miss something, to me it's still a boolean. and (still to me) it's not an inline conditional, but an assignment of a boolean expression to a boolean variable. to me the idiom if (complex_boolean_expression) foo(true); else foo(false); is more cluttersome than foo(complex_boolean_expression); but if that's a minority opinion, then leave Karin's code as is, of course. > http://codereview.appspot.com/4490045/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
