Andrew Bernard <[email protected]> writes: > So gentlemen, since this is a regular source of confusion,
You are the first to have complained. > and it certainly has had me glued up for many days wondering what is > wrong with my code, should this not be raised as a defect, or at the > very least the adjetctive ‘fatal’ removed fromt he message, and > replaced with ‘warning’ or something else? It is a fatal error in that LilyPond has no idea what you want, and exits with a fatal error message and an according error state, and without processing further files on the command line. I don't see the point in trying to leave a broken PDF file rather than finishing it. Some syntax errors are trivial and you want to have a working PDF file in order to correct as many problems as possible when every compilation takes half an hour. > As to lilypond making a best effort at producing output, I have never > seen this referred to in the NR. That ought to go in somewhere. But > for my preference, a serious syntax error which is just outright > garbage should in my opinion not produce any output. Other types of > compilers would stop. As does LilyPond. > If there is such an error it neeeds attention, not PDF output I > reckon. If you ignore both error messages as well as error status and just go by the presence of a PDF file and expect LilyPond to not open the PDF file unless it can guarantee an error-less rest of the run, then you still will get confused after editing a file badly by LilyPond leaving the old PDF file around untouched. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
