On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Peekay Ex wrote: > Mike, > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:27 AM, m...@apollinemike.com > <m...@apollinemike.com> wrote: >> On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> LGTM. >>> >>> BTW, I have a few queries about stem::length: >>> >>> 76 (let* ((d (ly:grob-property grob 'direction)) >>> >>> You don't use 'direction; is it still necessary to get it to trigger >>> other calculations? >>> >> >> I doubt it - it's likely vestigial. I'll work on a patch that addresses the >> issues below and remove this line. >> >>> 79 (beam (ly:grob-object grob 'beam))) >>> >>> Why do you need to access 'beam? AFAICT, the callback will never be >>> triggered on beamed notes, so it's redundant. It also makes the last >>> line look like a thinko: >>> >>> 82 (ly:grob-property grob 'length)))) >>> >>> This would be a calculation-in-progress, since you're already inside the >>> callback. >>> >> >> Agreed - I can likely get rid of all this stuff. I like the term `thinko' :) >> >> I'll try reducing this as much as possible and will post a patch. >> > > Are 5038042 and 5057041 both for 1881? or just 5038042 and if they are > all the same 1881 can I just apply both patches to do the checks or do > I need to reg test each one separately? > > Thanks
Hey James, They should be applied separately - 5038042 fixes 1881, and 5057041 prunes down bloated code. There is a chance that 5057041 is effected by 5038042 (I haven't tested them together yet) though I doubt it. After their countdowns, I'd push 5038042 first, rerun regtests on 5057041, and then either push 5057041 or modify it if necessary. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
