Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708

["Carl D. Sorensen" <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 5/24/09 4:49 AM, "Neil Puttock" <n.puttock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>:
>> Thanks,  Applied.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here:
> 
> - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in
> the bug tracker) will be ignored
> 
> - entries of the form (notename . alteration) are mangled:
> 
> \set Staff.keySignature = #'((0 . 2) (1 . 2)  (4 . 2))
> 
> -> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 2) . ,SEMI-SHARP)
>                              ((2 . 4) . ,SHARP))
> 
> Less seriously, the two conversion functions appear to be identical
> apart from the different dictionaries for alterations.  Would it be
> possible to use a single `fixKS' function with the dictionaries passed
> as an argument to cut down on the duplication?


Thanks for catching this, Neil.

Andrew, I've reverted the patch.  Could you rewrite it to fix these issues?

Graham, I added a comment to the bugtracker, and tried to change the status,
but I couldn't find a way to do it?  Do I have access to change status?

Neil,

On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check
convert-ly rules?  For code, we have regression tests.  For convert-ly, as
far as I know, we have nothing.  Should we be establishing convert-ly
regression tests?

Thanks,

Carl


---

----
Join the Frogs!