[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043)
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043) |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:02:51 +0200 |
On 27 avr. 2012, at 09:45, Keith OHara wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:44:24 -0700, <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> lily/beam.cc:1743: Beam::pure_rest_collision_callback (SCM smob, SCM
>> prev_offset,
>>
>> You're right - this is an error. Do you want me to fix it or are you
>> working on a patch into which the fix could be incorporated?
>
> I am re-ordering the arguments in that one C function, but I don't read
> Scheme so I am not sure if the observed order of the data is the intended
> order, or the conventional order.
>
> Your addition to the docs is pretty explicit that 'start' and 'end' are
> always the last two arguments, even in a chained-offset-callback where there
> are extra arguments. On the other hand, call-pure-function seems to put
> 'start' and 'end' in slots 2 and 3, with any other arguments attached later.
>
Call pure function puts start and end in the final two slots. The optional
arguments are passed in in slot two as a variable called `args' (check out
lily/grob-property.cc and scm/define-grobs.scm).
Cheers,
MS
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), k-ohara5a5a, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), mike, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), Keith OHara, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043),
address@hidden <=
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), Keith OHara, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), address@hidden, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), address@hidden, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), Keith OHara, 2012/04/27
- Re: Better pure height approximations for beamed rests. (issue 4860043), address@hidden, 2012/04/28