On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 11:36 +0000, d...@gnu.org wrote: > On 2014/10/09 11:08:16, richard_rshann.plus.com wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 17:41 +0000, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote: > > > Reviewers: , > > > > > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/153160043/diff/1/scm/chord-ignatzek-names.scm > > > File scm/chord-ignatzek-names.scm (right): > > > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/153160043/diff/1/scm/chord-ignatzek-names.scm#newcode98 > > > scm/chord-ignatzek-names.scm:98: (vector-ref #("C" "D" "E" "F" "G" > "A" > > > "B") (ly:pitch-notename > > > This looks like a bad idea. It does not obey the various chord name > > > languages. It does not use the same callbacks. It is a large > > > duplication of code not connected with the other code and not using > the > > > same options, functionality and interfaces. > > > When I saw this (on the lilypond-devel mailing list) I thought this > was > > a comment about the existing code. The code quoted is the existing > code, > > which I haven't changed. > > It most certainly isn't the existing code.
Well, that depends what I meant by the existing code - the specific file I was modifying calls chordRootNamer which is initialized to note-name->markup which is in chord-names.scm:62, and that is where the quoted construct exists in the current lilypond code, in fact I see it is repeated several times in that file. Richard _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
