> But shouldn't Lilypond check first if the syntax is correct instead
> of spending several seconds/minutes compiling a code that's doomed
> to visually fail?
Sometimes I want to see the output inspite of errors. Aborting
immediately if there is a syntax problem is definitely not always the
best solution. I fully agree with other people that it should be
Frescobaldi's job to jump to the first error message (in case it
doesn't do this already).
> In this case, the large project argument doesn't hold. Other than
> that, it seems we have different thresholds to what it means to have
> usable pdf output. The "service" of a glitchy PDF that Lilypond
> sometimes provides is of questionable value.
Simply check LilyPond's return value. If it is non-zero you know
there is a problem. On the other hand, having visual output in case
of errors sometimes help identify where and what the problem is.
TeX behaves quite similarly; IDEs for TeX also have the ability to
jump to errors.
Werner
