*I'll implement it.
On mar. 29 2022, at 12:06 pm, Martín Rincón Botero <martinrinconbot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sometimes I want to see the output inspite of errors. Aborting > > immediately if there is a syntax problem is definitely not always the > > best solution. I fully agree with other people that it should be > > Frescobaldi's job to jump to the first error message (in case it > > doesn't do this already). > > I would tend to sympathize with that personal preference if producing PDF > output was fast or if time was abundant. Worse than waiting for Lilypond to > compile is waiting for Lilypond to produce a visually corrupted PDF. > > Simply check LilyPond's return value. If it is non-zero you know > > there is a problem. On the other hand, having visual output in case > > of errors sometimes help identify where and what the problem is. > > I'm lucky to be able to work using Lilypond through Python. I never compile > the whole score I'm working on, but only the current "segment" (around 2 > pages) and the corresponding pages get updated in the PDF. Compiling the > whole thing is something I do only at the end of a project because it's so > slow (I believe TeX suffers from similar problems, so mentioning TeX doesn't > really improve the situation). Now your idea is a very good one, and I'll > implemented in my own Python algorithms (which will essentially make Lilypond > work twice: once without \score blocks and once with \score blocks). I just > checked: a 20 pages project takes about 30 seconds to compile. Compiling > Lilypond without a \score block takes about 1 second. If in the same project > I misspell the word "\tuplet" for example, with a \score block it won't stop > compiling and will continue until, voilà, you get a corrupted PDF. Why make > the user wait so long to make him fix a misspelled word or make him put a > curly brace? A first pass should be done without \score blocks and abort (or > at least ask if you want to continue!) if this first pass produces errors. > —Martín. > > On mar. 29 2022, at 11:10 am, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > But shouldn't Lilypond check first if the syntax is correct instead > > > of spending several seconds/minutes compiling a code that's doomed > > > to visually fail? > > > > Sometimes I want to see the output inspite of errors. Aborting > > immediately if there is a syntax problem is definitely not always the > > best solution. I fully agree with other people that it should be > > Frescobaldi's job to jump to the first error message (in case it > > doesn't do this already). > > > > > In this case, the large project argument doesn't hold. Other than > > > that, it seems we have different thresholds to what it means to have > > > usable pdf output. The "service" of a glitchy PDF that Lilypond > > > sometimes provides is of questionable value. > > > > Simply check LilyPond's return value. If it is non-zero you know > > there is a problem. On the other hand, having visual output in case > > of errors sometimes help identify where and what the problem is. > > > > TeX behaves quite similarly; IDEs for TeX also have the ability to > > jump to errors. > > > > > > Werner
