[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
From: |
Carl D. Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708 |
Date: |
Sun, 24 May 2009 07:14:28 -0600 |
On 5/24/09 4:49 AM, "Neil Puttock" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>> Thanks, Applied.
>
> Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here:
>
> - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in
> the bug tracker) will be ignored
>
> - entries of the form (notename . alteration) are mangled:
>
> \set Staff.keySignature = #'((0 . 2) (1 . 2) (4 . 2))
>
> -> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 2) . ,SEMI-SHARP)
> ((2 . 4) . ,SHARP))
>
> Less seriously, the two conversion functions appear to be identical
> apart from the different dictionaries for alterations. Would it be
> possible to use a single `fixKS' function with the dictionaries passed
> as an argument to cut down on the duplication?
Thanks for catching this, Neil.
Andrew, I've reverted the patch. Could you rewrite it to fix these issues?
Graham, I added a comment to the bugtracker, and tried to change the status,
but I couldn't find a way to do it? Do I have access to change status?
Neil,
On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check
convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as
far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly
regression tests?
Thanks,
Carl