Hi Michael,
Thanks for your work on this. I think this is excellent architectural
support for the future.
On 9/20/09 2:11 PM, "Michael Käppler" wrote:
> I think what now should be done is to check all assoc-get calls whether
> they should use strict_checking or not.
> In some cases this can b
Hi Neil,
thanks for reviewing and applying.
I think what now should be done is to check all assoc-get calls whether
they should use strict_checking or not.
In some cases this can be quite difficult IMHO and it's a far more
time-consuming task than what I've done. Maybe Mark can do this? I think
2009/9/18 Michael Käppler :
> Hmm... I forgot that ly:assoc-get throws an assert error instead of
> returning #f if it's list argument isn't a list. I reverted this for now,
> but maybe we should better output a programming error in assoc-get for this
> case?
I don't think that's necessary, since
Hi Neil,
Hmm, some of these don't look too secure. :)
Whoops...
(let* ((table (ly:output-def-lookup layout 'label-page-table))
- (label-page (and (list? table) (assoc label table)))
- (page-number (and label-page (cdr label-page)))
+
2009/9/17 Michael Käppler :
> that's nice. Here's the next step.
Hmm, some of these don't look too secure. :)
(let* ((table (ly:output-def-lookup layout 'label-page-table))
- (label-page (and (list? table) (assoc label table)))
- (page-nu
Hi Neil,
Thanks, also applied (no regtest problems to report).
that's nice. Here's the next step.
Btw. what's going on with the paper-margins patch? Could you run another
regtest / doc build?
Regards,
Michael
>From 7e0190ccc76f602d1e803f15832af780d449d863 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?
2009/9/13 Michael Käppler :
> Great. The next step is attached. Can you please run a regtest?
Thanks, also applied (no regtest problems to report).
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
Hi Neil,
Thanks, it's applied.
Great. The next step is attached. Can you please run a regtest?
Regards,
Michael
>From 2aa0ede53ec2b8e03f47c3b0f525cfbc636c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?Michael=20K=C3=A4ppler?=
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:11:36 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Turn assoc
2009/9/13 Michael Käppler :
> That should be fixed now.
Thanks, it's applied.
> Is there a default for maximum line length?
I tend to follow Carl's suggestion for 80 columns, but as John's
pointed out, sometimes it's awkward to keep within this limit.
Regards,
Neil
__
Le dimanche 13 septembre 2009 à 06:45 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> 80 characters maximum; I generally try to keep the lines about 70
> characters.
FWIW in Python code it's often hard to keep lines below 80 characters,
so I try to keep them around 80 characters and require them to be less
than
On 9/13/09 4:41 AM, "Michael Käppler" wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, silly me. :)
>>
>> I think we're nearly there. I'm just about to do a regtest check just
>> to be sure.
>>
>> Just a few remaining nitpicks:
>>
>> - trailing spaces
>> - long lines
>>
> That should be fixed now.
> Is there a de
Sorry, silly me. :)
I think we're nearly there. I'm just about to do a regtest check just
to be sure.
Just a few remaining nitpicks:
- trailing spaces
- long lines
That should be fixed now.
Is there a default for maximum line length?
Regards,
Michael
>From baaffd7f66ef05e6adb9562272b480
The regtests completed without a hitch.
Regards,
Neil
test-results.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
2009/9/12 Michael Käppler :
> Are you sure? I tried this and IIRC it failed to compile. If I read the
> guile manual correctly, it is only in Scheme optional, but not in C.
Sorry, silly me. :)
I think we're nearly there. I'm just about to do a regtest check just
to be sure.
Just a few remainin
Here's the next revision.
+ string key_string = ly_scm2string (scm_object_to_string (key,
SCM_UNDEFINED));
I think it's OK to leave out the print function argument, since it's optional.
Are you sure? I tried this and IIRC it failed to compile. If I read the
guile manual correctly, it is
2009/9/12 Michael Käppler :
> Many thanks for all helpful comments.
> Attached is the revised patch.
+ "Return value if @var{key} in @var{alist}, else @var{default_value}"
@var{default-value}
The automagical docs generation makes the C++ variables more
Scheme-like by replacing underscor
Many thanks for all helpful comments.
Attached is the revised patch.
What's the reason that chain-assoc-get is defined separately in
lily-library.scm:210, though ly_chain_assoc_get exists?
Regards,
Michael
>From 740bd0fcb035099086e9e60a325019fdf25595d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?
On 9/11/09 6:27 PM, "Michael Käppler" wrote:
>
>
>> You need to amend the definition of the method in lily-guile.hh, since
>> it's also used directly in the C++ code, with no optional arguments:
>>
>> 53 SCM ly_assoc_get (SCM key, SCM alist, SCM def);
Can't you just use
SCM ly_assoc_ge
You need to amend the definition of the method in lily-guile.hh, since
it's also used directly in the C++ code, with no optional arguments:
53 SCM ly_assoc_get (SCM key, SCM alist, SCM def);
Hmm... I don't exactly understand the LY_DEFINE macro. Is it possible to
implement this
with overloa
Hi Michael,
Just one nit-pick: in the error message "outputted" -> "output".
Cheers,
Ian
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
2009/9/11 Michael Käppler :
> Attached is the revised version. Okay to apply?
There are a few problems with this:
You need to amend the definition of the method in lily-guile.hh, since
it's also used directly in the C++ code, with no optional arguments:
53 SCM ly_assoc_get (SCM key, SCM alist,
Hi Carl,
LY_DEFINE (ly_assoc_get, "ly:assoc-get",
2, 1, 0,
This line is wrong; you need to have the total of these three numbers
be the total number of arguments.
Yes, I forgot to adjust this.
If you change this to 2, 2, 0, then strict-checking will be an optional
argument,
On 9/11/09 3:52 AM, "Michael Käppler" wrote:
> Hi Carl,
> (was it your intention to discuss this off-list? I ask because you
> didn't cc the list for the last two times.)
No, I made a mistake the first time, and the second time I replied all to
your email that replied to mine.
>> Hmmm -- I s
Hi Carl,
(was it your intention to discuss this off-list? I ask because you
didn't cc the list for the last two times.)
Hmmm -- I see your point.
Without looking into the code for each of those grep results, I couldn't
answer. But assoc-get is defined in LilyPond, and was certainly recommended
24 matches
Mail list logo
