It was my idea to have all the real code in the staff-symbol file, and
have staff-symbol-referencer just be a wrapper, ie.
Staff_symbol_referencer::on_line(Grob *me, x)
{
Grob *st = staff_symbol(me);
return Staff_symbol::on_line(st, x)
}
(with an intelligent default if st == NULL)
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Puttock wrote:
>>
>> 2008/8/10 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> I think Han-Wen's point is that the first argument to
>>> Staff_symbol::some_function(Grob *me, ...) should always be a staff
>>> symbol (whereas the first argument to
>>> Staff_symbol_referencer::some_function(Grob *me, ...) should be a staff
>>> symbol referencer).
>>
>> That makes sense.
>>
>>> In other words, the old code was ok but it isn't ok for
>>> Staff_symbol::on_line to accept something that isn't a staff symbol.
>>
>> Since that's the case, what do you think of the revised patch I
>> posted, which moves all the code back to staff-symbol-referencer.cc?
>> We currently have the situation where 2.11.52-2 is broken for
>> augmentation dots and ties, so this needs sorting out. If you don't
>> think the patch is suitable, perhaps we should just revert the leger
>> line patch and revisit it later.
>
> Ah, sorry, I evidently hadn't read your last email completely. The patch
> you sent on the 7th looks pretty much OK to me. My only concern is that
> you use real numbers instead of ints in line-positions; do we really
> support that? If we do, it seems that dot-positions will be pretty
> messed up in that case.
>
> Also, do we have regression tests for all this stuff?
>
> Cheers,
> Joe
>
>
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
