On 2018/06/22 07:18:20, lilypond-pkx wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/357720044/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/357720044/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode2780
Documentation/notatio
> On 22 Jun 2018, at 14:27, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> What would that be good for concerning this issue?
Only you know that: you did not like the explicit constructor for some reason,
but didn't detail.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-dev
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 22 Jun 2018, at 11:09, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hans Åberg writes:
>>
You could also do it as a constructor, if you prefer its syntax and
don't mind implementing yet another one:
explicit Transform(const Transform *t) ...
>>>
>>> One can also
> On 22 Jun 2018, at 11:09, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>>> You could also do it as a constructor, if you prefer its syntax and
>>> don't mind implementing yet another one:
>>>
>>> explicit Transform(const Transform *t) ...
>>
>> One can also use a tag type argument in th
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 21 Jun 2018, at 00:30, nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Maybe a function would help:
>>
>>Transform make_transform(const Transform *t)
>> {
>>return t ? Transform (*t) : Transform ();
>> }
>>
>> You could also do it as a constructor, if
> On 21 Jun 2018, at 00:30, nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe a function would help:
>
>Transform make_transform(const Transform *t)
> {
>return t ? Transform (*t) : Transform ();
> }
>
> You could also do it as a constructor, if you prefer its syntax and
> d
https://codereview.appspot.com/357720044/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/357720044/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode2780
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2780: @node SVG Output
I think yo
