On 22 April 2012 13:16, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> sorry for the delay; I was on holidays
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Łukasz Czerwiński
> wrote:
> > Could you please say, if there was a reason for using
> > do {
> >
> > } while(flip(&d));
> >
> > instead of my macro: if (UP_and_DOWN)
>
sorry for the delay; I was on holidays
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Łukasz Czerwiński
wrote:
> Could you please say, if there was a reason for using
> do {
>
> } while(flip(&d));
>
> instead of my macro: if (UP_and_DOWN)
Macros make code harder to read for people not into the project, so it
On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:19 PM, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
> Ok,
>
> Could we sum up the discussion?
> As I understand: for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
>{
>}
>
> is ok, right? I will wait for two OKs and then make changes and produce and
> upload a patch.
>
> Łukasz
>
LGTM.
Before you tackle this,
Ok,
Could we sum up the discussion?
As I understand: for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
{
}
is ok, right? I will wait for two OKs and then make changes and produce and
upload a patch.
Łukasz
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:37:14PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
> > I like that solution, but I'm iffy about relying on compiler
> > support for elements of languages that are less than 10 years old.
>
> I was not suggesting we use it. I just pointed out that in future f
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:16:07PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Actually, with option -std=c++0x GCC would accept
>>
>> for (Direction d : { UP, DOWN })
>> {
>>...
>> }
>>
>> and that would be readable enough without having to revert to macros.
>
> I like that so
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:16:07PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Actually, with option -std=c++0x GCC would accept
>
> for (Direction d : { UP, DOWN })
> {
>...
> }
>
> and that would be readable enough without having to revert to macros.
I like that solution, but I'm iffy about relying on c
Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
> On 15 April 2012 16:49, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
> > I'd like to write code, that will make Lilypond better or easier
> to be
> > used
>
>
> Not necessarily the same as "the C++ way".
>
>
> Right :) No iter
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 04:49:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
>
> > The final suggestion depends on suggestions from all of you. If you
> > find a better idea for (UP_and_DOWN(d)), I'll do so. If you find
> > easier: for_UP_and_DOWN,
On 15 April 2012 16:49, David Kastrup wrote:
> Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
> > I'd like to write code, that will make Lilypond better or easier to be
> > used
>
> Not necessarily the same as "the C++ way".
>
Right :) No iterators needed here :)
> > and it's not my goal to fulfill my ambitions
Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
> The final suggestion depends on suggestions from all of you. If you
> find a better idea for (UP_and_DOWN(d)), I'll do so. If you find
> easier: for_UP_and_DOWN, it could be this.
I find for_UP_and_DOWN somewhat more consistent, but syntax-awar
,
> > > the first instinct is just to ignore the discussion.
> >
> > Is this supposed to declare d itself or not?
>
> ... probably?
>
>
> Lukasz, could we have a nice concise example of exactly what the
> final suggestion is? What's the macro?
>
> - Graham
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:06:41PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> >> > for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
> >> > { ... }
> >> > for (LEFT_and_RIGHT(d))
> >> > { ... }
> >>
> > Not yet. I just wanted to clarify what you were talking about,
> > since most people don't have the ti
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:41:40PM +0200, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
>> On 14 April 2012 16:25, Graham Percival wrote:
>>
>> > tldr summary: we use these for direction loops:
>
> oops, that should be "we propose that we use these direction
> loops"
>
>> > for (UP_and_DOW
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:41:40PM +0200, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
> On 14 April 2012 16:25, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > tldr summary: we use these for direction loops:
oops, that should be "we propose that we use these direction
loops"
> > for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
> > { ... }
> > for (LEFT_and_
On 14 April 2012 16:25, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > If you don't know, what I am talking about, take a quick look at:
> > http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/flower/include/direction.hh(lines
> > 75-90).
>
> tldr summary: we use these for direction loops:
>
>
> for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:10:50PM +0200, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
> I've uploaded my patch without for_UP_and_DOWN, but now it's time to talk
> about this #define. I'd like to make a second patch that will introduce
> that, but there was no consensus.
ok, great!
> I
e. I consider this a
> useful abstraction.
>
> Now, there should probably be a paragraph explaining those two
> macros in the CG. But that's a minor detail.
>
> - Graham
>
Hi,
I've uploaded my patch without for_UP_and_DOWN, but now it's time to t
18 matches
Mail list logo
