On 2012/10/03 15:08:30, david.nalesnik wrote:
On 2012/10/03 13:57:25, dak wrote:
[...]
> To those suggestions let me answer with the famous answer to the
question "Mr
> Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?", namely with "I
would
> consider it a good idea."
Oh, for just one zinger like that...
> So the best I think I can do at the moment
> is to crosslink your suggestion to issue 2858 (which is about
documenting
> \shape) and see how and when and where Trevor thinks it should be
incorporated.
OK, thanks for doing this. Here I was simply thinking that the reg
tests should
cover as many situations as possible (within a modest length), but I
suppose
that the changes I proposed aren't testing anything that isn't covered
elsewhere
("Tweaks work!")
David, I honestly have not really looked into this at all and did not
even realize you were talking about regtests rather than documentation
(I have not touched either myself but rather let the convert-ly rule
deal with swapping argument order). So if you consider regression test
additions orthogonal to Trevor's documentation work, you are certainly
more acquainted with the code, and I am currently immersed in parser
work to make the Context.GrobName thing fly. So any actual
git-format-patch proposals to be folded into this issue or as a separate
add-on issue would be more than welcome. And it is never wrong to have
the regtests for one feature test all aspects of that feature, and not
rely on something else to prove that.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6585052/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
