On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 19:49 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2008/8/11 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 21:03 -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Makes sense to me. We'll end up with a smaller patch this way, too.
>
> OK, how about this?
>
> bool
> Staff_symbol_referencer::on_line (Grob *me, int pos)
> {
> Grob *st = get_staff_symbol (me);
> return st
> ? Staff_symbol::on_line (st, pos)
> : Staff_symbol::on_line (me, pos);
I would say that the second case should just be false. Unless 'me' is a
staff symbol, you should not call Staff_symbol::on_line(me). And if 'me'
is a staff symbol, it is not a staff symbol referencer, so no one should
be calling Staff_symbol_referencer::on_line(me).
Joe
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
