Re: procedures with setters: patches

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Nicolas Sceaux writes:

>  > I like the stylistic patches.

/me too, gives warm fuzzy feelings and saves me a bit of work.

>  > Jan always complains of my style, and
>  > he's probably right, but if you clean up after me, it frees me to do
>  > interesting stuff :-).  Still, but I would prefer to handle them
>  > separately, i.e. try not to mix stylistic and real changes.

Yes, I would agree, but that's also a bit hard to do.  I've decided
that it is easiest and most satisfying for me to just rigorously fix
any style bugs that I happen to encounter near POINT instead of
letting them annoy me, when editing a file (much like Nicolas does).

Doing style fixes separately requires quite a bit of dicipline and
means extra work (resolving conflicts).  It makes little sense to
'just remember' the files that need style fixes, and fix them in
another CVS tree: then it feels more like a LilyPond janitor job, and
looking at it that way: why not clean-up another file?  How about a
starting small scale janitor project?

> Should indentation be tabified, or untabified (I refer to the emacs
> commands)? This time, I have done a C-x h M-x tabify, but in previous
> patches, they were untabified.

I don't think we have a policy for this.  What do you suggest.

> When a pattern is encountered a few times, it is common pratice to
> write a macro that will expand to that pattern.
[..]
> which imho improves readability.  Although that's not purely
> stylistic, are you interested in such changes?

Yes, go for it.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org