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