If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-26
Patch: new --> review
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-26
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-26
I wonder if it would be useful to put in a warning message if someone 'by mistake' does this in their .ly file? (e.g. a kind of warning against an 'April in the the Spring' mistake)?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
There's a recent discussion on -devel about how to draw curves with more than 4 control-points. http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/stack-smashing-detected-tt221627.html
Not sure yet what to do and how ..., but I'd love to keep the possibility of entering more than the default amount of control-point without a type-checking warning here.
Ofcourse ly:slur::print, etc needs 4 control-points not more or less.
Thus a warning while applying ly:slur::print to a not suitable amount of control-points could warn. (More control-points will need a different or extended procedure.)
Is this doable with a reasonable amount of work?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
There's a recent discussion on -devel about how to draw curves with
more than 4 control-points. http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/stack-smashing-detected-tt221627.html
Not sure yet what to do and how ..., but I'd love to keep the
possibility of entering more than the default amount of control-point
without a type-checking warning here.
Ofcourse ly:slur::print, etc needs 4 control-points not more or less.
Thus a warning while applying ly:slur::print to a not suitable amount
of control-points could warn. (More control-points will need a
different or extended procedure.)
Is this doable with a reasonable amount of work?
I don't think it's worth the trouble: there are so many other ways to
provide faulty data. This issue is about avoiding clobbering the stack,
not more, not less. One could let it bomb out with some type error
instead by being less accepting, but adding additional code/warnings
seems to be mostly useless since most other ways to mess up would not be
covered anyway.
--
David Kastrup
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-27
Patch: review --> countdown
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-27
Patch on countdown for April 30th.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-28
Needs: -->
Patch: new --> review
Type: --> Enhancement
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-04-28
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-05-01
Patch: review --> countdown
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-05-01
Patch on countdown for May 3rd
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-05-03
Patch counted down - please push to staging.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-05-03
Patch: countdown --> push
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2019-05-06
labels: --> Fixed_2_21_0
status: Started --> Fixed
Patch: push -->
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Diff:
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
I wonder if it would be useful to put in a warning message if someone 'by mistake' does this in their .ly file? (e.g. a kind of warning against an 'April in the the Spring' mistake)?
There's a recent discussion on -devel about how to draw curves with more than 4 control-points.
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/stack-smashing-detected-tt221627.html
Not sure yet what to do and how ..., but I'd love to keep the possibility of entering more than the default amount of control-point without a type-checking warning here.
Ofcourse ly:slur::print, etc needs 4 control-points not more or less.
Thus a warning while applying ly:slur::print to a not suitable amount of control-points could warn. (More control-points will need a different or extended procedure.)
Is this doable with a reasonable amount of work?
"Thomas Morley" thomas-morley@users.sourceforge.net writes:
I don't think it's worth the trouble: there are so many other ways to
provide faulty data. This issue is about avoiding clobbering the stack,
not more, not less. One could let it bomb out with some type error
instead by being less accepting, but adding additional code/warnings
seems to be mostly useless since most other ways to mess up would not be
covered anyway.
--
David Kastrup
Patch on countdown for April 30th.
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
Patch on countdown for May 3rd
Patch counted down - please push to staging.