Re: setting the number of pages for a score

[Joe Neeman]

> Hi,
>
> I've put constrained breaking into CVS HEAD. Can you head over and 
> have a look?
>
> I have the following remarks:
>
>   * vsize vs. int: casts should not be necessary. Can you use VPOS iso 
> -1 as a magic signaling value?

Sure.

>   * The specification uses A j, k, n and m as variables.
>
>   Functions use start,end,sys_count,calc_subproblem as variables. Use 
> the same naming for the specification as for the code.

Then the specification will become very long (and, IMO, more tedious to 
read). Would it be OK if I instead added a paragraph explaining the 
relation between the 2 notations? Since the spec just describes the 
algorithm, I'd like to keep the notation non-invasive.

Also, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between names.

>   * Use
>
>    int a;
>    int b;
>
>   iso.
>
>    int a, b;
>
>
>    * no spurious *'s in /* */ comments.

Sure.

> I tried to call (naively) Constrained_breaking::solve()  from 
> paper-score.cc, but it fails with
>
>
> **
> Calculating line breaks... lilypond: constrained-breaking.cc:332: void 
> Constrained_breaking::prepare_solution(vsize, int, int, int*, int*): 
> Bewering `start < start_.size () && end <= int (start_.size ())' mislukt.
> Geannuleerd
> **
>
> when I feed it
>
> **
> \paper
> {
>   system-count = #4
> }
> \repeat unfold 20 { c''1 }
>
> **
>
> I tried to analyze for myself, but your naming confuses me: the spec 
> uses A, j, n  etc. while the code uses start, end, sys_count. Can you 
> make sure that the spec corresponds to the code written, also in its 
> naming details?
>
> If the use in paper-score.cc is wrong, please make sure that the 
> solve() just crashes in an obvious way instead of trying to continue.

There is a bug in do_solve (it calls get_solution with arguments in the 
wrong order). It's supposed to print a programming error and format it 
with 4 staves. But the use in paper-score is wrong, too.