On 17/08/11 07:41, Graham Percival wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:14:35PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> >> wrote: >>> So what does relying on undefined behavior buy us apart from >>> the inability to debug type errors? >> >> It buys us time to work on more interesting and more valuable >> improvements. > > By amazing coincidence, we have a potential Frog (I heard about her > about 24 hours ago) for whom this task is absolutely ideal. She has > experience with lilypond, scheme, C++, and assorted other > languages. She even has a mentor! > > I'm not suggesting that a major developer take the time to clean up > these things, but this seems like a fantastic way for her to "get > her feet wet" with the scheme/macro/C++ stuff -- and my vague > impression is that this is one area that contributors find the most > confusing. I've heard both scheme people and C++ people complain > that they can work on either scheme or C++, but as soon as a bug > touches both areas they give up. If she works on this, asks > questions about stuff she doesn't understand, and we add the > clarifications to the CG, I think this will be a great initial Frog > project. > > Cheers, - Graham 1+
Cheers Ian _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
