On 6 August 2011 15:31, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a hard time counting the removal of a band aid for an artificial
> test case with undefined behavior (try finding a place in the user
> documentation that declares this kind of code as producing predictable
> results) as a regression because the original code did not fix the
> underlying problem, but merely masked it.
So how would you expect the following code to behave? It's the
snippet from the original bug report, which segfaulted in stem.cc.
\relative c' {
\time 2/4
\voiceOne
s16 [g s g ] s16 [g s g ] |
s16 [g s g ] \override Stem #'(details beamed-lengths) = #'(15 15)
s16 [g s g ] |
s16 [g s g ] s16 [g s g ] |
s16 [g s g ] \revert Stem #'(details beamed-lengths) s16 [g s g ] |
s16 [g s g ] s16 [g s g ] |
}
The regression test is deliberately artificial since it gives a clear
indication of failure, which this code doesn't (the segfault no longer
occurs due to checking the nested property is a pair before using
robust_list_ref). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this code
to return 'beamed-lengths to the default value defined in
define-grobs.scm.
Cheers,
Neil
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
