On Sat, 2016-04-16 at 12:14 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote: > So gentlemen, since this is a regular source of confusion, and it > certainly has had me glued up for many days wondering what is wrong > with my code, should this not be raised as a defect, or at the very > least the adjetctive ‘fatal’ removed fromt he message, and replaced > with ‘warning’ or something else? > > > As to lilypond making a best effort at producing output, I have never > seen this referred to in the NR. That ought to go in somewhere. But > for my preference, a serious syntax error which is just outright > garbage should in my opinion not produce any output. Other types of > compilers would stop. If there is such an error it neeeds attention, > not PDF output I reckon.
However, the output PDF is often the fastest way of seeing the source and nature of the trouble. Unlike compiling an executable program where the output of a broken executable would be counter-productive, you can often see where it starts to go wrong looking at a PDF. And, indeed, I've seen many cases where the output PDF is just fine despite LilyPond not expecting it; useful for those using a front end that don't really understand the syntax generated. Richard _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
