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