I no longer plan to push context-global-*.ly, though I won't refresh the
code review for it.
By the time I'm done with some changes I'm working on, I think I'll have
to overhaul those cases to take a different approach.
https://codereview.appspot.com/348760043/
_
On 2018/05/07 23:07:36, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2018/05/07 22:53:29, Dan Eble wrote:
> stop relying on duplicating type+ID
Carl,
I hope that these revisions address your concerns about the tests per
se.
After reviewing the revised tests, I am in favor of moving back to your
original patch, wit
On 2018/05/07 22:53:29, Dan Eble wrote:
stop relying on duplicating type+ID
Carl,
I hope that these revisions address your concerns about the tests per
se.
https://codereview.appspot.com/348760043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gn
On 2018/05/03 12:40:17, Carl wrote:
In my opinion, the most ideal result when one tries to create a new
context with
the same type and id of an existing context would be to generate an
error,
something like "Error: duplicate Staff with ID of A".
First, thanks for taking a look.
It seems im
On 2018/05/03 02:48:10, Dan Eble wrote:
I would appreciate a close review of these tests by at least one of
the
long-time contributors or pro users. Contexts are a central part of
LilyPond
and if I've misjudged how any of these cases should work, I don't want
it to
slip by. Thanks.
If
Reviewers: ,
Message:
I would appreciate a close review of these tests by at least one of the
long-time contributors or pro users. Contexts are a central part of
LilyPond and if I've misjudged how any of these cases should work, I
don't want it to slip by. Thanks.
If you have suggestions on a
