On 2020/04/13 22:10:25, dan_faithful.be wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:31, mailto:hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Does const serve a purpose here? The iterator doesn't carry
through
> > with any
> >> kind of enforcement. The same question applies to try_retrieve()
and
> >> to_alist().
> >
>
On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:31, hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Does const serve a purpose here? The iterator doesn't carry through
> with any
>> kind of enforcement. The same question applies to try_retrieve() and
>> to_alist().
>
> It allows one to iterate over properties in a const method.
>
> Wha
On 2020/04/13 20:27:34, hanwenn wrote:
> On 2020/04/13 20:10:35, dak wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
> > File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/i
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh#newcode54
lily/include/mutable-properties.hh:54: Iterator iter()
On 2020/04/13 20:10:35, dak wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
> File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh#newcode31
> lily/include
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh#newcode31
lily/include/mutable-properties.hh:31: class Iterator {
On 2020/04/13 17:28:16, Dan Eble wrote:
> On 2020/04/13 17:22:52, hanwenn wrote:
>
> > > If you're not interested in doing this, I might try it myself.
> >
> > By structuring it like this, you enforce the implementation to store
the
> > key/value as SCM cells, which is exactly what we want to get
On 2020/04/13 17:22:52, hanwenn wrote:
> > If you're not interested in doing this, I might try it myself.
>
> By structuring it like this, you enforce the implementation to store
the
> key/value as SCM cells, which is exactly what we want to get away
from.
OK, I didn't understand that from the d
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh#newcode31
lily/include/mutable-properties.hh:31: class Iterator {
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh
File lily/include/mutable-properties.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/include/mutable-properties.hh#newcode31
lily/include/mutable-properties.hh:31: class Iterator {
On 2020/04/13 16:03:00, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/04/13 15:06:16, hanwenn wrote:
> >
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc
> > File lily/grob-scheme.cc (left):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc#oldcode326
> > l
On 2020/04/13 15:06:16, hanwenn wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc
> File lily/grob-scheme.cc (left):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc#oldcode326
> lily/grob-scheme.cc:326:
> On 2020/04/13 14:56:45, h
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc
File lily/grob-scheme.cc (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc#oldcode326
lily/grob-scheme.cc:326:
On 2020/04/13 14:56:45, hahnjo wrote:
> This should very probably not be p
Reviewers: lemzwerg,
Message:
On 2020/04/13 14:58:01, lemzwerg wrote:
> From visual inspection, LGTM.
>
> I only wonder whether we should use
>
> if
> {
> foo(...);
> }
>
> or
>
> if
> foo(...);
>
> for single statements – right now, the source code contains both
variants...
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc
File lily/grob-scheme.cc (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/diff/565900043/lily/grob-scheme.cc#oldcode326
lily/grob-scheme.cc:326:
This should very probably not be part of this patch?
https://codereview.a
>From visual inspection, LGTM.
I only wonder whether we should use
if
{
foo(...);
}
or
if
foo(...);
for single statements – right now, the source code contains both
variants...
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043/
16 matches
Mail list logo
