On 2013/09/13 07:09:44, mike7 wrote:
With respect to your point about null pointers and the nature of the
patch, I
agree that there needs to be a better way to handle this. To me, the
general
problem seems to be "what do we do when we assume a grob will have
something
(bound, object, etc.) and it doesn't?" Is the solution to suicide the
spanner
if it doesn't have bounds? Is the solution to raise a programming
error like we
do now (I prefer that solution)?
LilyPond should always try to continue when an error is detected. If the error is thought to be a user error a warning should be issued and an assumption made about what was intended. If the error is thought to be due to faulty or missing code (as here) the erroneous operation should be abandoned and a programming error issued. Reported programming errors should always be recorded in an issue tracker unless one already exists. At least that, I believe, was the general approach adopted in the past and it seems sound to me. Trevor https://codereview.appspot.com/13582046/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
