On 6 August 2011 15:31, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > I have a hard time counting the removal of a band aid for an artificial > test case with undefined behavior (try finding a place in the user > documentation that declares this kind of code as producing predictable > results) as a regression because the original code did not fix the > underlying problem, but merely masked it.
So how would you expect the following code to behave? It's the snippet from the original bug report, which segfaulted in stem.cc. \relative c' { \time 2/4 \voiceOne s16 [g s g ] s16 [g s g ] | s16 [g s g ] \override Stem #'(details beamed-lengths) = #'(15 15) s16 [g s g ] | s16 [g s g ] s16 [g s g ] | s16 [g s g ] \revert Stem #'(details beamed-lengths) s16 [g s g ] | s16 [g s g ] s16 [g s g ] | } The regression test is deliberately artificial since it gives a clear indication of failure, which this code doesn't (the segfault no longer occurs due to checking the nested property is a pair before using robust_list_ref). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this code to return 'beamed-lengths to the default value defined in define-grobs.scm. Cheers, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel