Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Bertrand Bordage
> wrote:
>>> It is somewhat amusing, by the way, that Lilypond's to_boolean is
>>> required in order to let '() and #f be interpreted in the same manner.
>>> It would seem that Lisp's conflating them into `nil' is not t
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Bertrand Bordage
wrote:
>> It is somewhat amusing, by the way, that Lilypond's to_boolean is
>> required in order to let '() and #f be interpreted in the same manner.
>> It would seem that Lisp's conflating them into `nil' is not the worst
>> idea.
>
> This also mi
>
> > I'm already writing a section called "C/Scheme interface" where I
> > explain that scm_integer_p (x) == SCM_BOOL_T isn't correct.
>
> Well, it works as long as scm_is_eq works the same as ==. But that's an
> implementation detail of Guile and not part of the Guile API. Bypassing
> the Guile
Bertrand Bordage writes:
> I think so.
>
>
> I'm already writing a section called "C/Scheme interface" where I
> explain that scm_integer_p (x) == SCM_BOOL_T isn't correct.
Well, it works as long as scm_is_eq works the same as ==. But that's an
implementation detail of Guile and not part of the
I think so.
I'm already writing a section called "C/Scheme interface" where I explain
that scm_integer_p (x) == SCM_BOOL_T isn't correct.
I also start a list of functions like to_boolean explaining why and how to
use them.
As an expert of these issues, you will probably want to add some details
af
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:43:38PM +, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I think we ought to have a comment somewhere that describes why we don't
>> use scm_is_true. But I can't figure out where to put it -- I guess it
>> should be in the documentation that we hope
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:43:38PM +, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think we ought to have a comment somewhere that describes why we don't
> use scm_is_true. But I can't figure out where to put it -- I guess it
> should be in the documentation that we hope will arise as a result of
> al
On 2011/08/18 21:04:21, dak wrote:
On 2011/08/18 18:01:36, Carl wrote:
> On 2011/08/18 15:46:43, dak wrote:
Well, if we have properties that should default to #t (do we really
have any of
those?) then we should likely use something like to_boolean_or_t and
to_boolean_or_f instead of scm_is_
On 2011/08/18 18:01:36, Carl wrote:
On 2011/08/18 15:46:43, dak wrote:
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/bar-check-iterator.cc#newcode52
> lily/bar-check-iterator.cc:52: if (scm_is_true (tr->get_property
> ("ignoreBarChecks")))
> As I already explained: you can't replac
Thanks for your prompt and detailed reviews!
I applied the changes, especially dak's. I changed the type of side-axis
property to an integer.
Regards,
Cécile Hauchemaille
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-d
On 2011/08/18 15:46:43, dak wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/bar-check-iterator.cc#newcode52
lily/bar-check-iterator.cc:52: if (scm_is_true (tr->get_property
("ignoreBarChecks")))
As I already explained: you can't replace to_boolean with scm_is_true,
since
to_boolea
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc
File lily/ambitus-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc#newcode177
lily/ambitus-engraver.cc:177: Rational sig_alter = !scm_is_false
(handle)
On 2011/08/18 14:18:45, Reinhold
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/accidental-engraver.cc
File lily/accidental-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/accidental-engraver.cc#newcode319
lily/accidental-engraver.cc:319: if (scm_to_int
(left_objects_[i]->get_property ("side-axis
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/accidental-engraver.cc
File lily/accidental-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/accidental-engraver.cc#newcode319
lily/accidental-engraver.cc:319: if (scm_to_int
(left_objects_[i]->get_property ("side-axis
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc
File lily/ambitus-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc#newcode177
lily/ambitus-engraver.cc:177: Rational sig_alter = !scm_is_false
(handle)
On 2011/08/18 14:03:06, Cécile H
You'll find that I don't consider all advice given to you valid. Which
shows that this is a difficult area to understand, and that we should
likely, as a byproduct of your work, do a writeup about "Guile and
Lilypond" to make it easier for others to just follow rules when writing
stuff.
http://
Patch updated.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc
File lily/ambitus-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc#newcode177
lily/ambitus-engraver.cc:177: Rational sig_alter = !scm_is_false
(handle)
So, might scm_is
LGTM.
I haven't run the regtests, though, to make sure there are no
differences.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc
File lily/ambitus-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc#newcode177
lily/ambitus-engraver.cc
(Two minor comments however).
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/auto-beam-engraver.cc
File lily/auto-beam-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/auto-beam-engraver.cc#newcode172
lily/auto-beam-engraver.cc:172: return !scm_is_false (scm_call_4
(get
LGTM :)
Bertrand
http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Hi everyone,
I started working on this issue:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00646.html
Could you tell me if this is correct?
Regards,
Cécile Hauchemaille
Description:
Fixes boolean/SCM confusions, part 1.
Please review this at http://coderev
21 matches
Mail list logo
