On 2015/07/21 18:20:13, Dan Eble wrote:
this->f() is sometimes necessary in templates (I recall), but in those
cases the
compiler warns about ambiguity when it is omitted.
I prefer not to see this-> where it is unnecessary, however Keith does
have a
good point about extra clarity in comments.
Shrug. This patch changes 24 lines. It does not make any sense to dabble in general statements. If there is a particular comment where anyone would not want to see the change, it is easy enough to point it out and it can be changed if others agree. If there isn't, what are we even talking about? We have likely already spent more lines of text on the discussion than are affected by the patch. I've had 9000-line automated changes go through with less of a discussion than this. And for things like 9000-line automated changes, it is quite usual to do preparatory/cleanup work in order to pass muster. So if this patch needs a 1-line change to be ok, no problem with doing that. Or is there? https://codereview.appspot.com/258870043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
