https://codereview.appspot.com/258870043/diff/1/lily/grob.cc File lily/grob.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/258870043/diff/1/lily/grob.cc#newcode232 lily/grob.cc:232: /* This version of get_system is more reliable than get_system () On 2015/07/23 05:50:38, Keith wrote:
What do you mean by "get_system is more reliable than get_system ()" ?
The one-argument form of get_system is "more reliable" than the zero-argument form of get_system. You can perfectly well call the one-element form with this->get_system (me) as well, given a suitable this-pointer. Or with me->get_system (me). So the comment does not make less sense with regard to the actual language definition than it did before. It may be more apparent. At any rate, providing two identically named member functions, one static and one non-static (the latter of course makes use of the virtual function table but that's not really obvious from the code and comments here) seems like really bad interface design. At any rate, this would need to be The static member function get_system (Grob *) is more reliable than the non-static member function get_system () You can call either function using some this->get_system (...) call. https://codereview.appspot.com/258870043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
