On Jul 5, 2022, at 02:11, Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
>
> On 7/5/22 02:03, Dan Eble wrote:
>> Don't focus too closely on \fine. Engraving in the final timestep should be
>> orderly whether it is caused by \fine or the natural end of the input.
>> You're just more likely to get into interesting situations by something sane
>> like
>>
>> … \fine c1\< …
>>
>> than by something crazy like
>>
>> … c1*0\<
>
>
>
> I actually disagree. For me, an ideal design engraves
> { ... \fine c1\< } just fine, but warns upon seeing
> { ... c1*0\< } because that sounds like a mistake and
> a diagnostic is helpful.
I didn't say there should be no warning. I said engraving should be orderly.
Do we agree that c1*0\< should not warn AND THEN create an unusual spanner
anyway, risking downstream errors like issue 6372 [1]? I'm pretty sure we do.
—
Dan
[1] https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6372
