On 14 April 2012 16:18, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have no >> experience with it and instead of learning it now, I would like to >> > answer all > >> comments and correct all glitches, and finally close this patch. >> > > I _really_ suggest that you split the patch into separate patches. Some > of these changes are good and could have been pushed weeks ago; others > will still provoke arguments for the next few weeks.
To be clear: I believe that I have just stripped all for_UP_and_DOWN from that patch. I'm planning to add it as a separate issue @Google and upload a separate patch @Rietveld and that's what I will discuss in a separate mail. > // TODO: comment this >> > to every single struct/class/method/function. >> > > Well, ok. I see your point. But how to increase probability that >> > anyone will > >> comment that struct? >> > > Nobody's going to comment that struct, whether or not you clutter up the > source code with a //TODO comment. > Ok, I'll delete that. > I mean, look at this: > gperciva@gperciva-desktop:~/**src/lilypond (master)$ git grep FIXME | wc > -l > 286 > gperciva@gperciva-desktop:~/**src/lilypond (master)$ git grep TODO | wc -l > 979 > > Making that last number into 980 is not going to help. Well, partially you're right. But I think that it's not the problem that someone *adds* a new TODO. The problem is that *noone will handle them*! Maybe somebody should? I can take a look on those TODOs and FIXMEs, but don't promise that I will be able to correct them - many of them probably need pretty much knowledge of Lilypond internals, which I don't have. Yet ;) > No, but putting the macro inside the for() loop means that we don't need > to. Ok, I'll do a macro UP_and_DOWN. http://codereview.appspot.com/**5975054/diff/1/lily/note-** > collision.cc#newcode577<http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode577> > >> lily/note-collision.cc:577: for_UP_and_DOWN (d) // please, make a >> > comment to > >> this loop (better than the above one...) >> On 2012/04/01 05:00:25, Graham Percival wrote: >> > adding a comment to say "please comment this" does not help >> > > Once again, what could be done to get a comment to that loop? >> > > If you write up what you know about that particular situation and send > it to -devel for comments or questions, that may provide enough > incentive for somebody to explain it to you, and then you could add a > comment there. Ok, I'll do so. I'll mark it in my own code as TODO. > http://codereview.appspot.com/**5975054/diff/1/lily/staff-** > symbol-referencer.cc#**newcode137<http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/lily/staff-symbol-referencer.cc#newcode137> > >> lily/staff-symbol-referencer.**cc:137: * The unit is halves of staff >> > space. > >> On 2012/04/02 01:03:40, hanwenn wrote: >> > was the official coding style for comments changed? If not, can you >> > avoid the > >> > leading *s ? >> > > Is there any official coding style for comments? I couldn't find any >> > in CG. > > Hmm, I'm not certain if we have one or not. Who knows if not you? :) > And as it was stated here: >> > > http://codereview.appspot.com/**5651069/diff/5002/lily/note-** > collision.cc#newcode191<http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/5002/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode191> > >> leading *'s prevent comments misalignment. >> > > That sounds like a very good idea! > Great! It seems like a good thing to be mentioned in Documentation, don't you think? Łukasz
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
