On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > With all due respect,
Really? Who are you and what have you done with David? :-) > I doubt that. The reason is rather boring: my > changes broke ly:parser-include-string because I did not understand what > the pending_include whatever were for. I pushed two changes to staging > just now fixing this. Glad to hear it. > While the above example works fine now, when > using ly:parser-include-string, it is preferable to use $ to avoid > having your string getting injected _asynchronously_ after parser > lookahead (the above use is in a place without lookahead). Yes. I did figure that much. > A bug that made it through the reviews, nothing inherently bad about the > design. Thanks for the test example, by the way. Yes, it looks probably a bit far-fetched but said bug did break all of my scores! (Hence the disruption thing.) > The above file works fine with current staging. Since you, as opposed > to the Lilypond code base, appear to make extensive use of > ly:parser-include-string, you might want to consider contributing a few > regression tests capturing the essence of your usage patterns. That's what I wanted to know: since parser-include-string was originally implemented upon a request of mine, I wasn't sure it was considered vanilla LilyPond syntax and supported as such. Do you think this warrants a regtest of its own, or should it rather be added to include-string.ly? Cheers, V. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
