On 2016/08/16 14:24:50, dak wrote:
Regtest and fixes for glissandi, \<, \> and docs
Wow.
You've put up another load of work.
Some of the limitations you've mentioned yourself here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-08/msg00247.html
still persist. Though, tackling them would
On 2016/08/16 17:38:05, mark_opus11.net wrote:
On 2016/08/16 16:21:26, dak wrote:
> At any rate, our evaluations are not all that different and you
> are the one who actually tried working with the code so I lean
> towards trusting your judgment. I just hope that we don't get
> hit by use cases
On 2016/08/16 16:21:26, dak wrote:
At any rate, our evaluations are not all that different and you
are the one who actually tried working with the code so I lean
towards trusting your judgment. I just hope that we don't get
hit by use cases which will again not yield to this code while
it might
On 2016/08/16 09:09:25, mark_opus11.net wrote:
On 2016/08/12 22:12:43, dak wrote:
> I'm somewhat surprised since I would have thought the _semantics_
reasonably
> straightforward. If the _use_ turns out to be awkward, it could
probably
> amended with a few scheme functions delivering
>>> FYI I had to make a small change to the GMP spec to accommodate 32 bit
>>> - my patch shows what I had to do.
>>
>> If you don't use the patch, do any errors occur?
>
> Yes: the terminal output has this:
>
> Tail of target/tools/log/gmp.log
> in this configuration expects 64 bits.
On 2016/08/12 22:12:43, dak wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised since I would have thought the _semantics_
reasonably
straightforward. If the _use_ turns out to be awkward, it could
probably
amended with a few scheme functions delivering appropriate context
modifications
or possibly some music
On 2016/08/16 07:54:50, dak wrote:
On 2016/08/16 06:23:17, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> Didn't dive into the code in depth. From my (limited) testings, I'd
say it's
> very nice, thus:
I'm really bad at creating test cases. Do you have any spares left
over from
your (limited) testings that
On 2016/08/16 06:23:17, thomasmorley651 wrote:
Didn't dive into the code in depth. From my (limited) testings, I'd
say it's
very nice, thus:
I'm really bad at creating test cases. Do you have any spares left over
from your (limited) testings that would make for a regtest?
Reviewers: thomasmorley651,
https://codereview.appspot.com/302470043/diff/1/scm/modal-transforms.scm
File scm/modal-transforms.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/302470043/diff/1/scm/modal-transforms.scm#newcode188
scm/modal-transforms.scm:188: ;; See also LSR #105.
On 2016/08/16
Didn't dive into the code in depth. From my (limited) testings, I'd say
it's very nice, thus:
LGTM
A nitpick:
https://codereview.appspot.com/302470043/diff/1/scm/modal-transforms.scm
File scm/modal-transforms.scm (right):
10 matches
Mail list logo
