Hi David,
Could you make your own patch for the doc changes?
And, as you mentionned, the unused function should be removed. Do you
want me to commit this change?
Bertrand
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
bordage.bertr...@gmail.com writes:
Hi David,
Could you make your own patch for the doc changes?
Pushed. I have enough pending reviews, commits and patches that I don't
have the nerve to do yet another hoop-jumping exercise in parallel.
And, as you mentionned, the unused function should be
lily-guile updates pushed as 6ee8c04678442855cb794d4598c056c15c42673b.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
As usual, too late in the game. Better late than never.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/16006/Documentation/contributor/programming-work.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/programming-work.itexi (right):
I pushed the doc as b4a2cb2cf00347c477ed595f1435cc212e70ce33.
Could the remaining C part of the patch be 'countdowned'?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Update done.
I think the C part is ok.
There's maybe a few things to change in the doc.
Shall I wait for a countdown or push directly?
Bertrand
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Couldn't find a tracker issue for this, however it passes make and reg
tests.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Since it has C changes as well, I'd prefer it to go through a countdown.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2011/08/19 23:03:37, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/08/19 21:08:10, Carl wrote:
As an aside, I think that we should change the definition of the
property
align-dir. It should no longer be called a direction, since it's
not limited
to
the values -1, 0, and 1.
It's unused. I think
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Hi,
Graham asked me to document an small issue.
(http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/)
And this became something bigger.
He also told me to push it directly, but I made a few changes in the
interface as I read the code and wrote the doc.
So the review concerns only the
Doc part LGTM. I can't speak about the scm / C++ stuff.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
THanks for doing this!
I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial, and
I think the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
source should be the reference.
I think the code changes should be separated from the doc changes. I
disagree with your
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc
File lily/general-scheme.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode110
lily/general-scheme.cc:110: if (scm_is_integer (s))
On 2011/08/19 18:04:38, Carl wrote:
I think the old code
On 2011/08/19 20:20:12, Neil Puttock wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/include/lily-guile.hh
File lily/include/lily-guile.hh (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/include/lily-guile.hh#newcode96
lily/include/lily-guile.hh:96: //
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc
File lily/general-scheme.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4917044/diff/1/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode110
lily/general-scheme.cc:110: if (scm_is_integer (s))
On 2011/08/19 20:20:12, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2011/08/19
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:04:38PM +, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial, and
I think the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
source should be the reference.
On the long term, I agree with Carl. In
On 2011/08/19 21:08:10, Carl wrote:
As an aside, I think that we should change the definition of the
property
align-dir. It should no longer be called a direction, since it's not
limited to
the values -1, 0, and 1.
It's unused. I think it's superseded by stacking-dir.
Cheers,
Neil
On 8/19/11 4:35 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:04:38PM +, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some comments about the docs. I think they're too tutorial, and
I think the exhaustive lists are unwieldy and should be eliminated. THe
18 matches
Mail list logo
