On Oct 4, 2011, at 7:47 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Mike Solomon <mike...@ufl.edu> wrote: >> On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> >>> You skipped the cosmetic patch that folds together the (SCM, SCM) >>> callbacks into one big quanting callback. >>> >> >> You and I have different definitions of cosmetics. Living with a French >> woman, I am constantly told that I know nothing about cosmetics, so this >> does not surprise me. > > :) > >> That said, the "one big callback" thing is not doable without the giant >> rewrite attached to it, because in doing so, lots of > subtle tweaks have to be made to the functions from beam.cc so that > they are less reliant on the beam grob and more reliant on vectors of > information. So, I believe that the current patchset, as it stands, > is reviewable. > > Right; the confusing thing is that the bulk of the change is not about > consistent beams, but about reorganizing code. > > In general, I always to try to do the reorganization (that does not > change functionality) first and separately, and then do the new > feature in a new change >
I've pushed another cosmetic patch (only code moving, no difference in regtests save a graphviz change...grr...). The diff is now more readable on Rietveld. The only other cosmetic change I could make is lumping together init_stems and init_collisions in current mater (as they are currently lumped together in the patch), which would improve readability. Lemme know if you want me to do this. Otherwise, it is good to go. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
