> On Jul 5, 2022, at 08:05, Dan Eble <dan@lyric.works> wrote:
>
> 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.
I'll try to explain this more clearly. I doubt that we actually disagree about
this. I did not mean that those two cases should be handled the same in every
respect. My thoughts were focused on creating spanners at the end of the score.
Warning about a score ending in c1*0\< is likely to be helpful.
Creating a weird hairpin grob because no \fine was observed is not likely to be
helpful; rather, it is likely to lead to other errors like in issue 6372.
--
Dan
