On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 10:06:43PM -0400, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > Weird...I'm not sure why ours would segfault in one place whereas yours > would hit an assertion error in another.
Well, I didn't enable debug stuff in configure, so I'm certain why *I* didn't see any assertion errors. :) > This bug is listed as critical under the assumption that > there should be no segfaults in lilypond resulting from 3 lines of code > (lily segfaults all the time when I accidentally feed her a PDF file > instead of a .ly file, but I don't consider this to be a bug). However, if > you feel that it should be downgraded to high, I could do that as well. I think it should be downgraded to low. If we allow scheme, then it's impossible to make lilypond always produce either a message or output (the famous halting problem). I admit that this particular example uses an override rather than explicit scheme, but I think the same principle applies -- the user is trying to do something weird/unusual, so let's not panic when things go beserk. Let's compromise on Medium. :) > In this case, it seems that the ideal behavior would be to have the stems > reach down to the asymptotic point to which stems converge as their note > heads get smaller and smaller (try overriding the notehead stencil to be > progressively smaller boxes and you'll wee what I mean). Agreed. > I have no clue > where in the code this would need to be implemented, though. I can do this > task if no one else can, but I'm currently slammed w teaching, moving, and > composing for a series of gigs, so if someone else has the hour or two > it'd take to propose a non-kludgy solution (I agree that mine is a > kludge), please do! I'll move it into an enhacement in the mean-time. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel