As part of my patch related to [Issue 4375](#4375), I changed the error message
to
> programming error: Multi measure rest seems misplaced.
Which is at least more intelligible than *getrods (): I am not spanned!*
(besides, that function’s no longer named get_rods).
Maybe David’s suggestion would be better, though:
> multimeasure rest size not a multiple of bar size
Or for more clarity
> Multi measure rest’s duration is not a multiple of the current measure length.
Thoughts?
---
** [issues:#1291] R2 in single 4/4 measure produces "Object is not a markup."
and "I am not spanned!"**
**Status:** Accepted
**Labels:** Warning
**Created:** Mon Oct 04, 2010 01:24 AM UTC by Anonymous
**Last Updated:** Sun Sep 27, 2015 09:04 PM UTC
**Owner:** nobody
*Originally created by:* *anonymous
*Originally created by:*
[brownian....@gmail.com](http://code.google.com/u/brownian....@gmail.com/)
Reported by Marnix Klooster and David Kastrup,
[http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2010-10/msg00062.html](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2010-10/msg00062.html)
%---------------------8<-------------------------------
~~~~
:::TeX
\version "2.12.4" % the same for 2.13.35
{ R2 }
[...]
~~~~
We currently get
/tmp/junk2.ly:1:2: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/2
\{
R2 \}
Preprocessing graphical objects...
programming error: Multi\_measure\_rest::get\_rods \(\): I am not spanned\!
continuing, cross fingers
programming error: Object is not a markup.
continuing, cross fingers
This object should be a markup: \(\)
programming error: Multi\_measure\_rest::get\_rods \(\): I am not spanned\!
continuing, cross fingers
Instead, the message better be either
Warning: multimeasure rest fails bar check
\(in case that its length \_is\_ a full bar multiple\)
or
Error: multimeasure rest size not a multiple of bar size
\(in case that it could not work out anyway\).
In case of a warning, error recovery needs to result in something
reasonably sensible. If that is not feasible, one needs to create an
error instead.
A warning implies that Lilypond is going to do continue with reasonable
results.
\--
David Kastrup
%---------------------8<-------------------------------
Again, not sure about priority. "barcheck failed" looks like medium; but
"programming error" is closer to critical?..
---
Sent from sourceforge.net because testlilyissues-a...@lists.sourceforge.net is
subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/admin/issues/options. Or, if this is
a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list._______________________________________________
Testlilyissues-auto mailing list
testlilyissues-a...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/testlilyissues-auto
