Valentin Villenave <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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.)
Could you recheck with current staging? It would appear that you are in possession of the most comprehensive test suite available... >> 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. I don't throw out functionality as a rule. ly:export was an exception to that rule because its presence was fundamentally incompatible with maintaining predictable timing for #. But I backed up this step with a set of convert-ly rules of rather high quality and coverage (including the entire Lilypond code base). > Do you think this warrants a regtest of its own, or should it rather > be added to include-string.ly? I think extending include-string.ly is ok. I am somewhat surprised that it did not trigger, actually. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
