Re: Fixes boolean/SCM confusions, part 1. (issue 4875054)

[dak]

http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc
File lily/ambitus-engraver.cc (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/1/lily/ambitus-engraver.cc#newcode177
lily/ambitus-engraver.cc:177: Rational sig_alter = !scm_is_false
(handle)
On 2011/08/18 14:18:45, Reinhold wrote:
> On 2011/08/18 14:03:06, Cécile Hauchemaille wrote:
> > So, might scm_is_pair also work ?

> Yes, of course, that's the correct check...

It is a check that will work correctly.  However, it is not idiomatic.
The description for assoc and its friends will state that assoc will
return #f when no association could be found.  It does not state "will
return something that is not a pair", even though #f is the only
possible non-pair value.

So in order to match the check best to the description of the function,
I'd really check against false.

scm_is_pair will definitely work just as reliably for the computer, but
I think for humans, the check for false requires less thinking.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/bar-check-iterator.cc
File lily/bar-check-iterator.cc (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/bar-check-iterator.cc#newcode52
lily/bar-check-iterator.cc:52: if (scm_is_true (tr->get_property
("ignoreBarChecks")))
As I already explained: you can't replace to_boolean with scm_is_true,
since to_boolean( '() ) -> 0, whereas scm_is_true ( '() ) -> 1 (I
apologize for the mixture of X and Scheme syntax), and '() is
_definitely_ one value that needs to be interpreted as false in the
context of boolean properties.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/diff/8002/lily/bar-check-iterator.cc#newcode64
lily/bar-check-iterator.cc:64: if (scm_is_true (tr->get_property
("barCheckSynchronize")))
Again, scm_is_true is wrong here.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4875054/