David Kastrup wrote Friday, January 04, 2013 9:15 AM > "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote Friday, January 04, 2013 8:21 AM >> >>> Oscar Dub <oscar...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> From a user perspective, I thought it might be nice for the compiler >>>> to send out some kind of error or warning message. Currently there's >>>> no sign of anything wrong except the final output. Is this valid >>>> enough an issue to be worth a quick bug report? >>> >>> Overflow in C++ Rational arithmetic would take effort to reliably and >>> would complicate the code base considerably. At some point of time, the >>> Rational class will likely get replaced with Scheme rationals (which >>> have "arbitrary precision") and the problem will go away. >> >> Until then we ought to document this as a "Known issue" in NR 1.2.1 >> under Scaling durations. >> >> Copying to Bug list so bug squad can raise a Doc issue if they agree. > > I disagree. LilyPond uses "Rational" in a number of places, like for > alterations/accidentals/tunings, time management in general, and... uh. > [snip long list] > > Uh, possibly something in relation to beaming. That would seem to be > about it. But at any rate, there are oodles of places in LilyPond where > you can trigger silent overflow in non-Guile types. Totally not > restricted to duration scales.
True, but which of these have a simple documented user command like *m/n which could provoke the problem, and how many have a demonstrated example of a user encountering it? Those criteria are the important ones, together with the knowledge that the issue is unlikely to be fixed, in deciding what should be documented as a Known issue. Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
