Hi Han-Wen, I see -- so even with my arithmetic error (which started as a tiny offset of 9/6319), we should expect Lily to render the score.
I can see that if fractional relations get complex enough to require more precision than 32-bit values, there could be a problem. Is a possible solution to use 64-bit representation internally? Best regards, Adam On 11/29/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/11/29, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Excellent. I think what clued me in was the error message about going > > *backwards* in time ... > > > > And, yes: I think Han-Wen and the gurus really *really* got it right on the > > time-keeping: AFAICS, it's all rationals all the time and so completely > > exact. > > Actually, lily should never go backwards in time, not even if you have > really wonky time sigs and tuplets, so this is definitively a bug. > One possibility is that you have an overflow error: the rationals use > 32 bit integers, so they easily overflow if you do strange things. > > -- > Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
