On 3 July 2011 13:18, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote:
> On 7/3/11 5:49 AM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 01:43:40AM -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:41:15 -0700, <carl.d.soren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you make it possible for us to see the diff caused by applying this
>>>> script to the files you've mentioned?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will soon (unless Graham beats me to it) for a small sampling of files.
>>> It was awkward to set up branches correctly to create the diff;
>>> I'll get back to it when I'm not tired.
>>
>> Here's a complete run:
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commit;h=710b0d99b331a824
>> d0ed3d09f3f5f43d559b71b0
>
> Thanks, Graham!
>
> Nearly every change I saw looked like an improvement.
+1
Looks pretty good to me.
> @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ Book::mark_smob (SCM s)
> }
>
> int
> -Book::print_smob (SCM, SCM p, scm_print_state*)
> +Book::print_smob (SCM, SCM p, scm_print_state *)
> {
> scm_puts ("#<Book>", p);
> return 1;
>
> Note that scm_print_state* has changed to scm_print_state *
>
> Again, I prefer scm_print_state*
Since we associate the pointer operator with variables rather than
types I'd argue
scm_print_state *
is more `correct', even for unused variables.
Cheers,
Neil
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
