On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 23:59:11 -0700, <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/249820043/diff/1/lily/simple-spacer.cc File lily/simple-spacer.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/249820043/diff/1/lily/simple-spacer.cc#newcode199 lily/simple-spacer.cc:199: programming_error ("misuse of expand_line"); Any sensible fallback behavior for this "misuse of expand_line"? If we can reliably guess what the intent of the "misuse" is (after all, it would appear that the situation comes about from reasonably regular input rather than explicit user error), one could just do that and forget about the programming error.
These two asserts cannot be triggered in current code, except maybe through roundoff error, because the only calls of the function are protected my matching conditionals in Simple_spacer::solve() The third assert is the one that trips (windows-only).
Is there something reasonably "continuous" one can do so that small errors lead to small offsets?
The following line obviously returns a quantity that changes continuously across the assert condition, so I am 90% sure you are defying national stereotypes and using irony. In that case, yes, I do think the behavior that was being protected against is so benign that there need be no traps at all for these conditions. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel