Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:41 AM
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.
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.
+1
To me, the important first step is to enshrine the
correct constructs for common operations in the CG.
Looking through the source code to find examples
of coding Scheme/C++ interactions is confusing in
the extreme. Even if this is unnecessary for correct
operation it is definitely worthwhile to establish
a LP convention. We review contributions with
nitpicking comments on spelling and punctuation. We
have policies on indentation. Surely we should
establish a policy for coding these operations in
a standard (and correct) way.
Trevor
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3838 - Release Date: 08/16/11
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
