Hi,
my patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5067/
http://codereview.appspot.com/317270043 is currently on countdown. It
introduces the procedures
- lilypond>?
- lilypond>=?
- lilypondhttps://openlilylib.org
http://lilypondblog.org
___
On Feb 14, 2017, at 04:23 , Urs Liska wrote:
> introduces the procedures
>
> - lilypond>?
[etc.]
> comparing a given version to the one currently compiling the document.
Adding “version” to the name would be clearer.
—
Dan
___
lilypond-devel mailin
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/316300043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/314500043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/1/scm/lily-library.scm
File scm/lily-library.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/1/scm/lily-library.scm#newcode894
scm/lily-library.scm:894: (define (calculate-version ref-version)
This seems overly complicated. Why not just s
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/1/scm/lily-library.scm
File scm/lily-library.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/1/scm/lily-library.scm#newcode909
scm/lily-library.scm:909: (define-public (lilypond>? ref-version)
Instead of a separate procedure for each compa
Reviewers: dak, pwm,
Message:
I'm choking a little bit with having the operator as the first argument
instead of
actually being the first element. But apart from that this solution
works very well.
And as this is not intended to be end-user facing code it's of course OK
to have
just one single po
On 2017/02/14 15:00:10, pwm wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/1/scm/lily-library.scm
File scm/lily-library.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/1/scm/lily-library.scm#newcode909
scm/lily-library.scm:909: (define-public (lilypond>? ref-version)
Instead
On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote:
I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure invocation.
I think I'll create a new patch with this and a simplified
calculate-version
(that doesn't accept string lists)
Well, having the procedure as the first argument might be more
scheme-ish?
On 2017/02/14 15:37:35, pwm wrote:
On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote:
> I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure
invocation.
> I think I'll create a new patch with this and a simplified
calculate-version
> (that doesn't accept string lists)
Well, having the procedure as th
On 2017/02/14 15:37:35, pwm wrote:
On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote:
> I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure
invocation.
> I think I'll create a new patch with this and a simplified
calculate-version
> (that doesn't accept string lists)
Well, having the procedure as th
On 2017/02/14 15:49:26, dak wrote:
On 2017/02/14 15:46:20, git wrote:
> On 2017/02/14 15:37:35, pwm wrote:
> > On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote:
> > > I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure
invocation.
> > > I think I'll create a new patch with this and a simplified
calculat
On 2017/02/14 15:46:20, git wrote:
On 2017/02/14 15:37:35, pwm wrote:
> On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote:
> > I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure
invocation.
> > I think I'll create a new patch with this and a simplified
calculate-version
> > (that doesn't accept string
> > However, I found an issue in David's suggestion, namely the
> > (op 0 0) ;; return #t iff op includes equality
> > line.
> > This makes the function return #t when comparing with = and one
list
shortened
> > Try e.g. (ly:version? = 2 16)
> > This returns #t because in the third iteration w
On 2017/02/14 15:51:13, dak wrote:
On 2017/02/14 15:49:26, dak wrote:
> On 2017/02/14 15:46:20, git wrote:
> > On 2017/02/14 15:37:35, pwm wrote:
> > > On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote:
> > > > I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure
invocation.
> > > > I think I'll create a
Urs Liska wrote Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:23 AM
> my patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5067/
> http://codereview.appspot.com/317270043 is currently on countdown. It
> introduces the procedures
>
> - lilypond>?
> - lilypond>=?
> - lilypond - lilypond<=?
> - lilypond=?
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/20001/scm/lily-library.scm
File scm/lily-library.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/20001/scm/lily-library.scm#newcode899
scm/lily-library.scm:899: (let* ((a (car v1)) (b (car v2))
Requires v1/v2 to have at least one element.
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/20001/scm/lily-library.scm
File scm/lily-library.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/diff/20001/scm/lily-library.scm#newcode899
scm/lily-library.scm:899: (let* ((a (car v1)) (b (car v2))
On 2017/02/14 17:29:33, dak wrote:
Requires
On 2017/02/14 18:20:56, git wrote:
Ah yes. I had removed the
(and (eq? op =)
part, which I shouldn't have done
Well, that works only for a very particular equivalence. How about
something like
#(define (lexicographically op a b)
(let* ((ca (car a))
(iseql (op ca ca)))
(l
To throw in my own 2cts.
Why not compare strings, looks more straight forward to me.
(define (calculate-version-harm ref-version)
(cond ((string? ref-version) ref-version)
((number-list? ref-version)
(string-concatenate (list-join (map number->string ref-version)
".")))
On 2017/02/14 21:03:19, thomasmorley651 wrote:
To throw in my own 2cts.
Why not compare strings, looks more straight forward to me.
(define (calculate-version-harm ref-version)
(cond ((string? ref-version) ref-version)
((number-list? ref-version)
(string-concatenate (l
On 2017/02/14 21:08:48, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> The issue I can imagine: probably more expensive, especially with
guilev2
Please disregard the time values from my previous posts, they are
adulterated by the problems of _LilyPond_ with guile2
Doing all in pure guile-2.1.6 gives:
string-compa
Hi Harm,
Am 14.02.2017 um 22:03 schrieb thomasmorle...@gmail.com:
> To throw in my own 2cts.
>
> Why not compare strings, looks more straight forward to me.
>
>
Indeed your code looks simpler, and your measurement indicates that the
computational cost is very similar.
However, David's last comme
thomasmorle...@gmail.com writes:
> To throw in my own 2cts.
>
> Why not compare strings, looks more straight forward to me.
>
> (define (calculate-version-harm ref-version)
> (cond ((string? ref-version) ref-version)
> ((number-list? ref-version)
> (string-concatenate (list-join
Hi Harm,
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:10 AM, David Nalesnik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>> 2017-02-08 14:37 GMT+01:00 David Nalesnik :
>>
>>> I notice that the patch has gotten swept up into the review process.
>>> If you like, I will tell James to remove it, or
Hi David,
2017-02-15 0:25 GMT+01:00 David Nalesnik :
> Hi Harm,
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:10 AM, David Nalesnik
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Morley
>> wrote:
>>> 2017-02-08 14:37 GMT+01:00 David Nalesnik :
>>>
I notice that the patch has gotten swept up into the r
>> Maybe the solution to the problem is to scrap Win10 altogether.
>> The insidious updates seem to have messed up my permissions, so I
>> can't update VirtualBox -- even running the installer as an
>> administrator. (Was hoping that a newer version would correct the
>> problem I'm having.)
>
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
