On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
Rutger Hofman <rut...@cs.vu.nl> writes:
My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of
the note that directly precedes it.
That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.
Yes, I understand. But still, I fear it is a steep hurdle for the
uninitiated to understand that 'loose post-event'.
GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
Processing `sll.ly'
Parsing...
sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
\mark "X"
(c4) c c c
If you have a better proposal for the error message, let fly.
Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning
message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Would
sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent
\mark "X"
(c4) c c c
be any better? Or not mention the expedient of <> at all (might make it
harder for the user to figure out a workaround for his situation)?
sll.ly:4:13: warning: Cannot attach SlurEvent to preceding expression
\mark "X"
(c4) c c c
This one comes closest for me. I think it could be helpful to also
explain that the 'preceding expression' is not a note, and that that is
required for a SlurEvent/slur? Or is doing this for all possible error
scenarios a lifetime job?
or for brevity
sll.ly:4:13: warning: unattachable SlurEvent
\mark "X"
(c4) c c c
But this is just me; maybe others have different feelings.
Rutger
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
