Hi Ole,
On 31.12.24 15:54, Ole V. Villumsen wrote:
As I think I said, given the attitude with which I was met in this particular
case I am not going to this time.
from my perspective it seems like you were reading to much into the
lines written by Timothy. I’m going to blame the shortcomings
Thanks, Simon, for your constructive contribution in this situation.
It’s interesting that you’ve been able to reduce the example that I thought
minimal so much further. I still don’t see how I would have been able to
without an unreasonably great effort.
Yes, I might have made other requests,
Hi Ole,
it’s OK that you’re dissatisfied with the way LilyPond handles this
example, but we do not have the resources or policy to turn every such
example coming to the bug list into a constructive issue report ourselves.
For one thing, your example is not actually minimal. You are convinced
This could have been a long and interesting discussion that could at least have
lead to noticeable improvements of input validation in Lilypond and of the
documentation linked to. However I do not want to discuss with someone who puts
a good-faith bug report prepared according to all the guideli
On 30/11/2024 15:09, Ole V. Villumsen via bug-lilypond wrote:
If I leave out the lyrics from the example below, Lilypond sets the notes
nicely reporting no errors or warnings. When I include the lyrics, Lilypond
counts the measure in the second volta wrong. One, it now reports:
7-8.ly:11:40: w
If I leave out the lyrics from the example below, Lilypond sets the notes
nicely reporting no errors or warnings. When I include the lyrics, Lilypond
counts the measure in the second volta wrong. One, it now reports:
7-8.ly:11:40: warning: barcheck failed at: 7/8
\volta 2 { g2\repeat
