[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in tw

From: Łukasz Czerwiński
Subject: Re: Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two. (issue 5975054)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:39:15 +0200

On 14 April 2012 16:18, <address@hidden> wrote:

I have no
experience with it and instead of learning it now, I would like to
answer all
comments and correct all glitches, and finally close this patch.

I _really_ suggest that you split the patch into separate patches.  Some
of these changes are good and could have been pushed weeks ago; others
will still provoke arguments for the next few weeks.

To be clear: I believe that I have just stripped all for_UP_and_DOWN from that patch. I'm planning to add it as a separate issue @Google and upload a separate patch @Rietveld and that's what I will discuss in a separate mail.

> // TODO: comment this
> to every single struct/class/method/function.

Well, ok. I see your point. But how to increase probability that
anyone will
comment that struct?

Nobody's going to comment that struct, whether or not you clutter up the
source code with a //TODO comment.

Ok, I'll delete that.
I mean, look at this:
address@hidden:~/src/lilypond (master)$ git grep FIXME | wc
address@hidden:~/src/lilypond (master)$ git grep TODO | wc -l

Making that last number into 980 is not going to help.

Well, partially you're right. But I think that it's not the problem that someone adds a new TODO. The problem is that noone will handle them! Maybe somebody should? I can take a look on those TODOs and FIXMEs, but don't promise that I will be able to correct them - many of them probably need pretty much knowledge of Lilypond internals, which I don't have. Yet ;)
No, but putting the macro inside the for() loop means that we don't need
Ok, I'll do a macro UP_and_DOWN.
lily/ for_UP_and_DOWN (d) // please, make a
comment to
this loop (better than the above one...)
On 2012/04/01 05:00:25, Graham Percival wrote:
> adding a comment to say "please comment this" does not help

Once again, what could be done to get a comment to that loop?

If you write up what you know about that particular situation and send
it to -devel for comments or questions, that may provide enough
incentive for somebody to explain it to you, and then you could add a
comment there.

Ok, I'll do so. I'll mark it in my own code as TODO.
lily/ * The unit is halves of staff
On 2012/04/02 01:03:40, hanwenn wrote:
> was the official coding style for comments changed? If not, can you
avoid the
> leading *s ?

Is there any official coding style for comments? I couldn't find any
in CG.

Hmm, I'm not certain if we have one or not.

Who knows if not you? :)
And as it was stated here:
leading *'s prevent comments misalignment.

That sounds like a very good idea!

Great! It seems like a good thing to be mentioned in Documentation, don't you think?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]