On Feb 8, 2019, at 07:05, d...@gnu.org wrote:
>
> string
> _f (char const *format, const string &s, const string &s2, const string
> &s3)
> {
> return String_convert::form_string (gettext (format), s.c_str (),
> s2.c_str (),
> s3.c_str ());
> }
>
> anyway. F
Frankly, my approach would be to throw that function out. It just
obfuscates what will and what will not work and keeps GCC from issuing
warnings when number and uses of %s don't match.
Hmm. Having a C++ version of `_f' is actually quite nice, since
appending `c_str' again and again is a nuisa
On 2019/02/08 11:41:45, lemzwerg wrote:
> Can you give any reason why it _should_ work rather than "I tried"?
flower/include/international.hh:46
Oh good grief.
string _f (char const *format, ...)
__attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 2)));
string _f (char const *format, const string &s, const
Can you give any reason why it _should_ work rather than "I tried"?
flower/include/international.hh:46
https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-de
On 2019/02/08 09:49:58, lemzwerg wrote:
On 2019/02/08 09:42:27, dak wrote:
> https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/diff/1/lily/relocate.cc
> File lily/relocate.cc (right):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/diff/1/lily/relocate.cc#newcode128
> lily/relocate.cc:128: TOPLEVEL_VERSION
Reviewers: dak,
Message:
On 2019/02/08 09:42:27, dak wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/diff/1/lily/relocate.cc
File lily/relocate.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/diff/1/lily/relocate.cc#newcode128
lily/relocate.cc:128: TOPLEVEL_VERSION, package_datadir));
W
https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/diff/1/lily/relocate.cc
File lily/relocate.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/347070043/diff/1/lily/relocate.cc#newcode128
lily/relocate.cc:128: TOPLEVEL_VERSION, package_datadir));
Why no .c_str () here (and lots of other places)?
https://coder
