Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two. (issue 5975054)

[k-ohara5a5a]

LGTM, except that it confuses the two programs we have used recently for
automatic code indentation.


http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/flower/include/direction.hh
File flower/include/direction.hh (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/flower/include/direction.hh#newcode90
flower/include/direction.hh:90: for (Direction d = UP; d != CENTER;
flip(&d), d == UP ? d = CENTER : d)
It is still difficult to understand.
Consider
for (Direction d = UP; d != CENTER; d = (UP == d)? DOWN, CENTER)

http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc
File lily/note-collision.cc (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode45
lily/note-collision.cc:45: /* Filter out the 'o's in this configuration,
since they're no
> Keith, I'm trying to understand the whole function and
> divide it into parts.
> Does this comment refer only to the two lines below?

It explains the two assignment lines below.  We use the results of those
assignments, the filtered arrays of note-heads, for the rest of the
function.
Therefore you don't need to pass 'ups' and 'dps' as arguments in to this
function.
See http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=984

http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/lily/note-collision.cc#newcode404
lily/note-collision.cc:404: for_UP_and_DOWN (d)
The code-indenting program we use
  http://astyle.sourceforge.net/
is not smart enough to determine that this macro starts a control block,
so it indents the code as if for_UP_and_DOWN was a function call or
function definition.
The indenter in emacs does the same.

If you write the 'for' loop directly in the code, then neither humans
nor auto-indent programs need to learn a macro:
for (Direction d = UP; d; d = (UP == d)? DOWN : CENTER)

http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/