Re: Mark / Barcheck Bug (#1626) Appearing Again

2016-10-15 Thread Jay Anderson
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Andrew Bernard wrote: > Don't you have to provide an argument for \mark, I thought? > > I am not familiar with 2.18.2, but in 2.19.48 you do: Yep. I think \mark requiring an argument explains the errors in the examples fully: - The first

Re: Mark / Barcheck Bug (#1626) Appearing Again

2016-10-15 Thread Christopher Heckman
After playing around with Lilypond for a while, I found out that \mark appears to "gobble up" the next token in the list. For example, \new Staff { c \mark | c c c | } and \new Staff { c c c c | c c c \mark | c | c c c c | } should give barcheck errors but don't. That's because

RE: Mark / Barcheck Bug (#1626) Appearing Again

2016-10-15 Thread Andrew Bernard
Hi, Don't you have to provide an argument for \mark, I thought? I am not familiar with 2.18.2, but in 2.19.48 you do: Processing `/tmp/frescobaldi-pofhqya8/tmp1asznm_p/document.ly' Parsing... /tmp/frescobaldi-pofhqya8/tmp1asznm_p/document.ly:4:20: error: wrong type for argument 1.