On 2 November 2010 07:41, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
Have you meanwhile found some time to ponder? I'm quite curious...
Yes. :)
Here's the short answer:
chain_callback () returns SCM_UNDEFINED if the property data being
chained isn't a procedure or closure.
(grob-closure.cc)
78
Here's the short answer:
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation!
chain_callback () returns SCM_UNDEFINED if the property data being
chained isn't a procedure or closure. [...]
For me, this seems to be the right action.
For TupletNumber, [...] since its positioning relies on the
OK. To debug this is beyond my capabilities, sorry. Hopefully, I
find time to dive into lilypond's Scheme details, but currently I
have no time to do that; right now I'm pretending to be Joe User.
No problem. I've done a bit more investigating, and I think I know
what's going on; I'll
On 30 October 2010 08:39, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
Would it be sufficient to handle SCM_UNDEFINED in
type_check_assignment?
I don't think so. Unlike SCM_EOL or SCM_BOOL_F it doesn't have an
analogue in Scheme code.
Or is there a deeper problem?
I think so. Perhaps there's a
On 30 October 2010 15:48, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
OK. To debug this is beyond my capabilities, sorry. Hopefully, I
find time to dive into lilypond's Scheme details, but currently I have
no time to do that; right now I'm pretending to be Joe User.
No problem. I've done a bit more
Or is there a deeper problem?
I think so. Perhaps there's a callback returning SCM_UNDEFINED by
mistake or forgetting to change an undefined default to something
sane.
OK. To debug this is beyond my capabilities, sorry. Hopefully, I
find time to dive into lilypond's Scheme details, but
lilypond -dcheck-internal-types input/regression/slur-tuplet.ly
It appears that there is some internal error in LilyPond that is
causing -dcheck-internal-types not to work properly.
Yep.
I'm afraid this is over my head, although I'll look around a bit
more at it.
I did a bit of
On 29 October 2010 09:18, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
in file lily-guile.cc; for the above lilypond call it gets passed a
value of 0x204 for `val'.[1] This is obviously a special constant,
however, I haven't found out what guile symbol this corresponds to due
to the extremely cryptic
On 10/27/10 11:32 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
However, I do have the original doc-build error, which would
presumably be the same problem as the regtest failure: [...]
c7/lily-4bb72c87.ly
The compilation of this file fails? Which snippet is that?
By looking at
On 10/28/10 7:54 AM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 10/27/10 11:32 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
However, I do have the original doc-build error, which would
presumably be the same problem as the regtest failure: [...]
c7/lily-4bb72c87.ly
The compilation of this
Hello
On 28/10/2010 23:00, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
\sourcefilename slur-tuplet.ly
But when I manually compile this regtest, I get: [...]
success: Compilation successfully completed
Honestly, I've suspected that. The question is whether Graham has
observed a Heisenbug, or whether the change
On 10/28/10 4:00 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
\sourcefilename slur-tuplet.ly
But when I manually compile this regtest, I get: [...]
success: Compilation successfully completed
Honestly, I've suspected that. The question is whether Graham has
observed a Heisenbug, or whether
\sourcefilename slur-tuplet.ly
But when I manually compile this regtest, I get: [...]
success: Compilation successfully completed
Honestly, I've suspected that. The question is whether Graham has
observed a Heisenbug, or whether the change really triggers the crash
in the build...
I don't think it's a Heisenburg. The make test fails for me, too.
Me too... Very, very strange. Anybody out here who knows enough
about the Scheme internals to debug it?
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On 10/28/10 4:39 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
I don't think it's a Heisenburg. The make test fails for me, too.
Me too... Very, very strange. Anybody out here who knows enough
about the Scheme internals to debug it?
I'm currently seeing if I can reproduce it by a single
On 10/28/10 4:44 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 10/28/10 4:39 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
I don't think it's a Heisenburg. The make test fails for me, too.
Me too... Very, very strange. Anybody out here who knows enough
about the Scheme
On 10/28/10 4:52 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 10/28/10 4:44 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 10/28/10 4:39 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
I don't think it's a Heisenburg. The make test fails for me, too.
Me too... Very, very strange. Anybody out
The recent improve positioning of TupletNumber and Slur patch breaks
the doc and regtest compile. I don't understand to understand how or
why, but it does, so I've reverted that commit.
Sorry, I don't have an exact error message for you, because somebody
thought it would be funny to spam tons of
18 matches
Mail list logo
