> Except that the premise of this thread was that users refuse to look > _at_ _all_ at _any_ messages or error status and instead want to be able > to deduce the presence of errors from the existence of output files.
> So it pretty much doesn't matter what we write on the console: it's not > acceptable for LilyPond to produce any file in case of a syntax error. Actually the premise of this thread was something altogether different, and I'd rather believe it's a simple case of misunderstanding than you trying deliberately to make any sort of healthy debate futile: Andrew started with: > Wouldn’t a complete syntax error stop processing? Then Simon wrote: > To me, the oddity would be in that Lily speaks of a ‘fatal error’ here. That's the whole premise for you right there. The existence or absence of output files is just a corollary. If we can further pinpoint the discussion, given the current way lilypond handles parsing (or other) errors, what *is* the meaning of 'fatal error'? Sharon -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lilypond-error-behaviour-tp189622p189688.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
