Knut Petersen <knut_peter...@t-online.de> writes:
> Am 19.09.2016 um 14:29 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
>> Sorry, Knut, but this is a totally inacceptable report. It’s not
>> clear what you want, and you come up with an example of 300+ lines
>> of code.
> There are times where you cannot see the wood for the trees. I posted
> the original mail because
> I was unable to get the expected behaviour after a _long_ time of
> searching for an error in my code.
> All that led me to the assumtion that some side effect of the weird
> Score layout that is necessary to
> force instruct lilypond exposed a bug, so a short MWE was not a real option.
> Now, after looking at the code again for a long time, I see that I
> simply forgot a "time 3/4" in the hidden
> (lower) staff of the staffgroup. That caused the bars to be out of
> sync and so no barline spanner was
> drawn. lilypond was right, and I was wrong. No bug, too simple :-(
The showstopper was that your description was quite too vague to figure
out what you were expecting and what you were getting instead. So it
was a case of people not being able to help even _after_ investing time,
because it became necessary not to figure out the _cause_ of the problem
but rather figuring out what the problem was supposed to be in the first
The only thing more frustrating than spending more time than necessary
on solving somebody else's problem is spending more time than necessary
on not even starting to solve somebody else's problem.
It's like playing soccer on a really bad field and afterwards figure
from the score board that you accidentally gatecrashed the synchronized
lilypond-devel mailing list