The next patch set was by mistake placed by me in a new issue:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5862052.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc
File lily/accidental-placement.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc#ne
Dear Han-Wen, Keith and Joe,
many thanks for your comments and advice! I appreciate your feedback
and apologize that i didn't respond yet; i was waiting for Łukasz
(milimetr88@gmail) to decide together what we shall do, but he's
currently busy :/
Please give us a few more days. Meanwhile, i set
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I disagree. Reading code the first time is hard, that is true, but
>> unless anything surprising is happening, it does not deserve a
>> comment. The more you read code, the easier it becomes, and think of
>> this as you learning how to rea
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM, wrote:
>
>> Well, the main point of the comment is not describing parameters, but
>> the function itself. Believe me or not, we spent 10 minutes figuring
>> out _what the hell_ are apes doing here and whether there are any
>> bananas
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote:
> Yes - someone who knows this code :] Possibly one day someone will try
> to refactor this code, what will mean that he understands it well.
> For me it's really hard to understand whats going on here. Me and Janek
> recently spent a couple of hours tryi
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM, wrote:
>> somebody proposed a change, it was resisted because the do{}
>
> flip(d)!=UP idiom
>>
>> seemed simple enough to be acceptable.
>
>
> It took us a while to figure out what's going on with the do{}
> flip(d)!=UP thing.
> If it was up to me, i'd just writ
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc
File lily/note-collision.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode587
lily/note-collision.cc:587: for_UP_and_DOWN (d)
On 2012/02/13 11:33:48, hanwenn wrote:
after reading some of th
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc
File lily/note-collision.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode536
lily/note-collision.cc:536: s[LEFT]--; // why LEFT and RIGHT instead of
UP and DOWN?
sometimes i liked to think
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc
File lily/accidental-placement.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc#newcode211
lily/accidental-placement.cc:211: * @return A vector of
Accidental_placement_entrys
On 2012/02
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/5002/lily/note-collision.cc
File lily/note-collision.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/5002/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode191
lily/note-collision.cc:191: */
Protect the comment formatting with a column of '*'s
Otherwise, someone mig
new patch set uploaded, please review.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc
File lily/note-collision.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode588
lily/note-collision.cc:588: {
On 2012/02/11 12:32:57, Milimetr88 wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc
File lily/accidental-placement.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc#newcode211
lily/accidental-placement.cc:211: * @return A vector of
Accidental_placement_entrys
Do you mea
Forgot about one thing, sorry
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc
File lily/note-collision.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode552
lily/note-collision.cc:552: for_UP_and_DOWN (d) // please, make a
comment to this
On 2012/02/10 23:49:24, Carl wrote:
Thanks for taking this on, Janek.
I don't know what the response will be to for_UP_and_DOWN(d). The
last time
somebody proposed a change, it was resisted because the do{}
flip(d)!=UP idiom
seemed simple enough to be acceptable.
It took us a while to f
carl.d.soren...@gmail.com writes:
> Thanks for taking this on, Janek.
>
> I don't know what the response will be to for_UP_and_DOWN(d). The last
> time somebody proposed a change, it was resisted because the do{}
> flip(d)!=UP idiom seemed simple enough to be acceptable.
>
> But I think the new i
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc
File lily/accidental-placement.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5651069/diff/1/lily/accidental-placement.cc#newcode211
lily/accidental-placement.cc:211: * @return A vector of
Accidental_placement_entrys
Please don
Thanks for taking this on, Janek.
I don't know what the response will be to for_UP_and_DOWN(d). The last
time somebody proposed a change, it was resisted because the do{}
flip(d)!=UP idiom seemed simple enough to be acceptable.
But I think the new idiom is more readable, and if there are no
per
Reviewers: milimetr88,
Message:
Hi,
together with Luke (milimet...@gmail.com) we're preparing a fix for
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1546
We had a really hard time on Wednesday trying to understand how the
current code works; after 4 hours of reading we have some grasp now
18 matches
Mail list logo
