David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> Rutger Hofman <rut...@cs.vu.nl> writes:
>
>> My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of
>> the note that directly precedes it.
>
> That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.
>
>>>> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
>>>> Processing `sll.ly'
>>>> Parsing...
>>>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
>>>> \mark "X"
>>>> (c4) c c c
>
> If you have a better proposal for the error message, let fly.
Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning
message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Would
>>>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent
>>>> \mark "X"
>>>> (c4) c c c
be any better? Or not mention the expedient of <> at all (might make it
harder for the user to figure out a workaround for his situation)?
>>>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Cannot attach SlurEvent to preceding expression
>>>> \mark "X"
>>>> (c4) c c c
or for brevity
>>>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: unattachable SlurEvent
>>>> \mark "X"
>>>> (c4) c c c
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
