On May 5, 2011, at 7:51 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On May 5, 2011, at 1:50 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/05 20:44:36, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/05/05 16:30:28, MikeSol wrote:
(a) People to confirm that the circular dependency I fear (beam
placement
relying on rest
Reviewers: ,
Message:
I can already see that this may lead to circular dependencies, but
(miraculously) it passes the regtests and actually improves all but one
collision, whose results were bad before and are worse now (it squashes
the beam into a notehead).
Obviously, this patch is rather
On 2011/05/05 16:30:28, MikeSol wrote:
(a) People to confirm that the circular dependency I fear (beam
placement
relying on rest placement relying on beam placement relying on...)
does not
exist.
Did you do a regtest run with an unoptimised binary?
I get cyclic dependency errors in three
On 2011/05/05 20:44:36, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/05/05 16:30:28, MikeSol wrote:
(a) People to confirm that the circular dependency I fear (beam
placement
relying on rest placement relying on beam placement relying on...)
does not
exist.
Did you do a regtest run with an
On May 5, 2011, at 1:50 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/05 20:44:36, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/05/05 16:30:28, MikeSol wrote:
(a) People to confirm that the circular dependency I fear (beam
placement
relying on rest placement relying on beam placement relying on...)
does not
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:44 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you do a regtest run with an unoptimised binary?
I get cyclic dependency errors in three tests. Here's an example from
beam-collision-basic.ly:
we should add a note to always use the unoptimized debug binary for
the regtests.
