bordage.bertr...@gmail.com writes:
> Hi David,
>
> Could you make your own patch for the doc changes?
Pushed. I have enough pending reviews, commits and patches that I don't
have the nerve to do yet another hoop-jumping exercise in parallel.
> And, as you mentionned, the unused function should
Hi David,
Could you make your own patch for the doc changes?
And, as you mentionned, the unused function should be removed. Do you
want me to commit this change?
Bertrand
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypon
As usual, too late in the game. Better late than never.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/16006/Documentation/contributor/programming-work.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/programming-work.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/16006/Documentation/contributor/pr
"lily-guile updates" pushed as 6ee8c04678442855cb794d4598c056c15c42673b.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
I pushed the doc as b4a2cb2cf00347c477ed595f1435cc212e70ce33.
Could the remaining C part of the patch be 'countdowned'?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinf
Since it has C changes as well, I'd prefer it to go through a countdown.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Couldn't find a tracker issue for this, however it passes make and reg
tests.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Update done.
I think the C part is ok.
There's maybe a few things to change in the doc.
Shall I wait for a countdown or push directly?
Bertrand
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://list
On 2011/08/19 23:03:37, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/08/19 21:08:10, Carl wrote:
> As an aside, I think that we should change the definition of the
property
> align-dir. It should no longer be called a direction, since it's
not limited
to
> the values -1, 0, and 1.
It's unused. I think
On 8/19/11 4:35 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:04:38PM +, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial, and
>> I think the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
>> source should be t
On 2011/08/19 21:08:10, Carl wrote:
As an aside, I think that we should change the definition of the
property
align-dir. It should no longer be called a direction, since it's not
limited to
the values -1, 0, and 1.
It's unused. I think it's superseded by stacking-dir.
Cheers,
Neil
http
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:04:38PM +, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial, and
> I think the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
> source should be the reference.
On the long term, I agree with Carl. In
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc
File lily/general-scheme.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode110
lily/general-scheme.cc:110: if (scm_is_integer (s))
On 2011/08/19 20:20:12, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/08/19 1
On 2011/08/19 18:04:38, Carl wrote:
THanks for doing this!
And thanks for this excellent review!
I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial,
and I think
the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
source should
be the reference.
You're right.
On 2011/08/19 20:20:12, Neil Puttock wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/include/lily-guile.hh
File lily/include/lily-guile.hh (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/include/lily-guile.hh#newcode96
lily/include/lily-guile.hh:96: //
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc
File lily/general-scheme.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode110
lily/general-scheme.cc:110: if (scm_is_integer (s))
On 2011/08/19 18:04:38, Carl wrote:
I think the old code h
THanks for doing this!
I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial, and
I think the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
source should be the reference.
I think the code changes should be separated from the doc changes. I
disagree with your changes
Doc part LGTM. I can't speak about the scm / C++ stuff.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Hi,
Graham asked me to document an small issue.
(http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/)
And this became something bigger.
He also told me to push it directly, but I made a few changes in the
interface as I read the code and wrote the doc.
So the review concerns only the C
19 matches
Mail list logo
