On Mi., 17. Aug. 2011 10:19:33 CEST, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > I mean, look at the bad code I dug up. Pretty early in the list there > was: > - if (mode != SCM_UNDEFINED && scm_string_p (mode)) > + if (scm_is_string (mode))
Yes, that's code that should really be fixed. > > If you feel compelled to change large swaths of source code by > > substituting x == SCM_EOL with scm_is_eq(x, SCM_EOL), then I can't > > stop you, but to me it just looks like a waste of time. > > That would be scm_is_null (x). It is not exactly like the code gets > less readable by that substitution. Here, I agree with David, too. If we have someone who wants to work on them and clean up some code, I have no objection. It just probably won't fix a problem, but improves readability and code style. The only proble I see with the -D compile switch is the code of ly_symbol2scm (which is used several times in almost every file), which does a check "if (!cached)" to see if the SCM cache has been initialized. How should this be correctly implemented? It is not a check for a scheme value, but builds on the guile internals of how a SCM looks when initialized. BTW, it might be useful to compile with -fno-inline to get warnings from inlined functions directly rather than at the spot where they are called. Cheers, Reinhold _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
