Sharon Rosner <cico...@gmail.com> writes: >> Except that the premise of this thread was that users refuse to look >> _at_ _all_ at _any_ messages or error status and instead want to be able >> to deduce the presence of errors from the existence of output files. > >> So it pretty much doesn't matter what we write on the console: it's not >> acceptable for LilyPond to produce any file in case of a syntax error. > > Actually the premise of this thread was something altogether different, and > I'd rather believe it's a simple case of misunderstanding than you trying > deliberately to make any sort of healthy debate futile: > > Andrew started with: > >> Wouldn’t a complete syntax error stop processing? > > Then Simon wrote: > >> To me, the oddity would be in that Lily speaks of a ‘fatal error’ here. > > That's the whole premise for you right there. The existence or absence of > output files is just a corollary. > > If we can further pinpoint the discussion, given the current way lilypond > handles parsing (or other) errors, what *is* the meaning of 'fatal error'?
An error leading to a fatal error message and a non-zero exit status because LilyPond does not see fit to deal with the input properly. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
