I expected this one to be a real nobrainer... Anyway,
On 2016/06/05 15:51:25, dak wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/299250044/diff/1/scm/bar-line.scm File scm/bar-line.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/299250044/diff/1/scm/bar-line.scm#newcode30
scm/bar-line.scm:30: (define-public (calc-blot thickness extent grob) For a public function, the name is awful. When made public, the
naming should
be related to the functionality of the function from a general
viewpoint rather
than its function within this file only.
Understood. Right now I don't have a good idea for the naming, though. At least one which would be short enough.
Also I don't actually see how the "commit message" relates to making
calc-blot
public:
"To facilitate defining custom-bar-lines using ly:round-filled-box"
Huh? You mean, instead of having to use ly:round-filled-box directly?
Because
ly:round-filled-box should already be available anyway. Or something
else? Ok, the message _is_ awful. I wanted to express: If a user copies p.e. `make-simple-bar-line' in order to do some minor modifications to fit his personal needs, he will not also need to c/p `calc-blot`, although it is used to determine the blot which is consumed by the there used ly:round-filled-box-procedure. I'll set it to need-work on the tracker for now, so that James doesn't need to test. https://codereview.appspot.com/299250044/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
