Le 27/03/2022 à 20:59, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
Jean:
This is strange: What does '2.2-LE-8-3.A' mean? Why do I get two
paths concatenated? Additionally, the `.go` files are put into
`/home/wl/lilypond/scm/out`
Because of Lilypond's functions exported from C++, which are added
onl
Jean:
>>This is strange: What does '2.2-LE-8-3.A' mean? Why do I get two
>>paths concatenated? Additionally, the `.go` files are put into
>>`/home/wl/lilypond/scm/out`
>
> Because of Lilypond's functions exported from C++, which are added
> only when running Lilypond but are neede
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> * The compilation output says, for example,
>>>
>>> ```
>>> ;;; compiling
>>> /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily/graphviz.scm
>>> ;;; compiled
>>> /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/home/wl/lilypond/scm/graph
Le 27/03/2022 à 10:06, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
It totally is expected: Because "make bytecode" is optional and not the
default, "make install" cannot install it by default. You need to
explicitly ask for "install-bytecode". This was discussed on the
mailing list and is spelled out both in the
Am Sonntag, dem 27.03.2022 um 09:12 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Because of Lilypond's functions exported from C++, which are
> added only when running Lilypond but are needed for byte-compilation,
> we cannot use the normal method to get .go files, 'guild compile'.
> We thus hijack the 'auto-c
Le 26/03/2022 à 23:09, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
Byte-compilation, I guess. I seem to recall that Guile 2 uses
primitive-eval to run code that is not byte-compiled, and this loses
the location information. Generally speaking, running code without
compilation seems to be preserved for the sake of
>> * The compilation output says, for example,
>>
>> ```
>> ;;; compiling
>> /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily/graphviz.scm
>> ;;; compiled
>> /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/home/wl/lilypond/scm/graphviz.scm.go
>> ```
>>
>> T
>> IMHO, this is completely useless. There is not a single hint to
>> the location of the error – why does Guile treat
>> `define-markup-commands.scm` as an 'unknown file'?
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> That the error does not _occur_ in define-markup-commands.scm?
> define-markup-command is a ma
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> Byte-compilation, I guess. I seem to recall that Guile 2 uses
>> primitive-eval to run code that is not byte-compiled, and this loses
>> the location information. Generally speaking, running code without
>> compilation seems to be preserved for the sake of eval but not
> Byte-compilation, I guess. I seem to recall that Guile 2 uses
> primitive-eval to run code that is not byte-compiled, and this loses
> the location information. Generally speaking, running code without
> compilation seems to be preserved for the sake of eval but not
> well-supported at all. T
Werner LEMBERG writes:
> [782f5528e0, using a self-compiled, static version of Guile 2.2.7]
>
> While working on some LilyPond Scheme code I made a typo in file
> `define-markup-commands.scm`. While executing `lilypond -V` (after
> `make install`) to process my `.ly` file I get the following
> b
[782f5528e0, using a self-compiled, static version of Guile 2.2.7]
While working on some LilyPond Scheme code I made a typo in file
`define-markup-commands.scm`. While executing `lilypond -V` (after
`make install`) to process my `.ly` file I get the following
backtrace.
```
19 (ly:boo
12 matches
Mail list logo
