On Jul 5, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 5 July 2011 08:26, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>
>> Just to get the ball rolling on this, were I to start on a patch that
>> implements this sort of settings checking, where would be a good place to
>> start?
>> I know where the context mod
On 5 July 2011 21:26, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> Thanks Neil! I should have been clearer before: what I don't understand is
> not the function call (pardon the double negative), but rather how the layout
> block evades setting do_internal_type_checking_global and/or how layout
> blocks ar
On 5 July 2011 08:26, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> Just to get the ball rolling on this, were I to start on a patch that
> implements this sort of settings checking, where would be a good place to
> start?
> I know where the context mods are set and where the properties are set, but I
> don'
On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 4 July 2011 15:31, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> Would a redundant check of settings from default context definitions be a
>> problem? I can't imagine that such a check would take 1% of the processing
>> time.
>
> I don't know, though I agree is un
On 4 July 2011 21:33, wrote:
> Where is set_property defined?
lily/include/lily-guile-macros.hh
The actual type-checking occurs in Context::internal_set_property ().
Cheers,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.
On 2011/07/04 13:14:55, Neil Puttock wrote:
Context_def::add_context_mod () is where the assignment takes place
(and you can see from set_property () how the type-checking is done).
Where is set_property defined?
cheers,
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/4650070/
__
On Jul 4, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Montag, 4. Juli 2011, 16:39:08 schrieb Neil Puttock:
>> On 4 July 2011 15:31, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>> Plus, I don't think it's really a redundant check; I think it's a real
>>> check. Absent such a check, we're trusting on the *-init.l
Am Montag, 4. Juli 2011, 16:39:08 schrieb Neil Puttock:
> On 4 July 2011 15:31, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> > Plus, I don't think it's really a redundant check; I think it's a real
> > check. Absent such a check, we're trusting on the *-init.ly files being
> > correct, which admits a potential progra
On 4 July 2011 15:31, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Would a redundant check of settings from default context definitions be a
> problem? I can't imagine that such a check would take 1% of the processing
> time.
I don't know, though I agree is unlikely to be a significant overhead.
> Plus, I don't thin
On 7/4/11 7:14 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> On 4 July 2011 13:53, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>
>> I didn't realize this was the real issue :)
>> Any tips as to how one would go about fixing this? Anything that happens
>> before engravers kick in (dispatchers, parsers, etc.) remains a mystery
On 4 July 2011 13:53, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> I didn't realize this was the real issue :)
> Any tips as to how one would go about fixing this? Anything that happens
> before engravers kick in (dispatchers, parsers, etc.) remains a mystery to
> me...
Context_def::add_context_mod () is w
On Jul 4, 2011, at 2:47 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2011/07/04 12:38:06, MikeSol wrote:
>> Fixes issue 1734.
>
> On 2011/07/04 12:38:06, MikeSol wrote:
>> Fixes issue 1734.
>
> I think this covers up the real problem: context settings in a \layout
> block have no type check.
I didn't re
On 2011/07/04 12:38:06, MikeSol wrote:
Fixes issue 1734.
On 2011/07/04 12:38:06, MikeSol wrote:
Fixes issue 1734.
I think this covers up the real problem: context settings in a \layout
block have no type check.
Your addition simply duplicates Guile's error message for
fingeringOrientations
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Fixes issue 1734.
Description:
Adds a warning for non-list fingeringOrientations settings.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4650070/
Affected files:
M lily/new-fingering-engraver.cc
Index: lily/new-fingering-engraver.cc
diff --git a/lily/new-fingeri
14 matches
Mail list logo
