On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:14:35PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > So what does relying on undefined behavior buy us apart from the > > inability to debug type errors? > > It buys us time to work on more interesting and more valuable improvements.
By amazing coincidence, we have a potential Frog (I heard about her about 24 hours ago) for whom this task is absolutely ideal. She has experience with lilypond, scheme, C++, and assorted other languages. She even has a mentor! I'm not suggesting that a major developer take the time to clean up these things, but this seems like a fantastic way for her to "get her feet wet" with the scheme/macro/C++ stuff -- and my vague impression is that this is one area that contributors find the most confusing. I've heard both scheme people and C++ people complain that they can work on either scheme or C++, but as soon as a bug touches both areas they give up. If she works on this, asks questions about stuff she doesn't understand, and we add the clarifications to the CG, I think this will be a great initial Frog project. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
