[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fixes issue 1881 (cyclic dependency with beam calculations) (issue 5
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: Fixes issue 1881 (cyclic dependency with beam calculations) (issue 5038042) |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:16:48 +0200 |
On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Peekay Ex wrote:
> Mike,
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:27 AM, address@hidden
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>>
>>> LGTM.
>>>
>>> BTW, I have a few queries about stem::length:
>>>
>>> 76 (let* ((d (ly:grob-property grob 'direction))
>>>
>>> You don't use 'direction; is it still necessary to get it to trigger
>>> other calculations?
>>>
>>
>> I doubt it - it's likely vestigial. I'll work on a patch that addresses the
>> issues below and remove this line.
>>
>>> 79 (beam (ly:grob-object grob 'beam)))
>>>
>>> Why do you need to access 'beam? AFAICT, the callback will never be
>>> triggered on beamed notes, so it's redundant. It also makes the last
>>> line look like a thinko:
>>>
>>> 82 (ly:grob-property grob 'length))))
>>>
>>> This would be a calculation-in-progress, since you're already inside the
>>> callback.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed - I can likely get rid of all this stuff. I like the term `thinko' :)
>>
>> I'll try reducing this as much as possible and will post a patch.
>>
>
> Are 5038042 and 5057041 both for 1881? or just 5038042 and if they are
> all the same 1881 can I just apply both patches to do the checks or do
> I need to reg test each one separately?
>
> Thanks
Hey James,
They should be applied separately - 5038042 fixes 1881, and 5057041 prunes down
bloated code. There is a chance that 5057041 is effected by 5038042 (I haven't
tested them together yet) though I doubt it. After their countdowns, I'd push
5038042 first, rerun regtests on 5057041, and then either push 5057041 or
modify it if necessary.
Cheers,
MS