Le vendredi 18 décembre 2009 à 00:38 -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit : > We already have a plausible explanation, and a fairly simple solution: > use flock() in ly:parse-file on the .ly file.
I think it's better to sanitize lilypond-book behaviour instead, namely fixing relevant_contents and make sure there are no duplicate in snippet filename lists passed to lilypond. I'll take care of both things later. > Overwriting files is not actually a problem, since the .ly files will > be overwritten by the same content. Not exactly, as I shown in my other reply in this thread. More precisely, we only want to overwrite in case the different fragment options don't change lilypond processing (these options are used by lilypond-book and are not read from the generated ly code but directly from the snippet Python object); maybe we should just strip those options from the generated ly BTW... Best, John
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
