Re: Fixes segfault in beam quanting. (issue4339047)

[address@hidden]

On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote Monday, April 04, 2011 6:13 AM

I think it is good that these are fixed, but not important enough to

spend serious time on finding and plugging all of them.  The question

is how much of the code we should consider user-serviceable.  If one

C++ part of Lily passes data using Scheme types to another C++ part,

should that other part be resistent users inserting bogus values into

that internal channel ?

Can we distinguish code that is publicly accessible in Scheme?  Or
maybe those routines that are advertised in the docs.  If so, it is these
that need to be robust.  I would not be worried by segfaults in anything
that is accessible only via a local build.  Anyone building LP can surely
handle segfaults themselves.  But users struggling with Scheme need
all the help we can provide.

Trevor

I've gotten one LGTM on the 3-ish line patch patch I proposed.  Could I please have either a second "LGTM" or a "please don't push."

http://codereview.appspot.com/4339047/

I agree with Trevor that, for common tweaks (i.e. ones advertised in the docs), LilyPond shouldn't segfault.

Cheers,

MS