Some comments based on looking through the articulate.ly script code
(after having made similar observations about the accuracy of the
supported/unsupported lists as Trevor Daniels did).
Since the default behavior of articulations is about to change in the
next release (issue 3664), I'm worried t
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/20001/lily/include/smobs.hh
File lily/include/smobs.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/20001/lily/include/smobs.hh#newcode145
lily/include/smobs.hh:145: template
On 2014/10/04 15:19:56, Dan Eble wrote:
FWIW, "Super" confused
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/20001/lily/include/smobs.hh
File lily/include/smobs.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/20001/lily/include/smobs.hh#newcode145
lily/include/smobs.hh:145: template
FWIW, "Super" confused me mightily until I saw by the light of d
Reviewers: Dan Eble,
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/1/lily/include/smobs.hh
File lily/include/smobs.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/1/lily/include/smobs.hh#newcode175
lily/include/smobs.hh:175: // Since we consider those internal-only, two
of them are ac
Not using different types for members with the same name is an
improvement.
This works with gcc 4.4.3 in LilyDev.
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/1/lily/include/smobs.hh
File lily/include/smobs.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/153970044/diff/1/lily/include/smobs.hh#newco
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> [...] it may be feasible to remove the line
>>
>> if (Super::print_smob != 0)
>>
>> in lily/include/smobs.hh. Can you check whether this solves your
>> problem or whether warnings for other functions remain?
>
> Other warnings remain. I've applied the following p
