2016-04-17 21:01 GMT+02:00 Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>: > IMHO, it would make sense to [...] have 3 categories: > - warning: user, please look at this > - error: this is severe, there is something definitely wrong, but > Lilypond did its very best to keep running > - fatal error: this is severe and Lilypond could not rescue the > situation, nothing was produced
We do this already, (but see below for multi-file-compilation). Actually, we have even more fine-grained errors/warnings/messages. But if any problem causes an _error_ of any kind (not a warning), even a non_fatal_error, LilyPond throws a fatal error _after_ having tried to create a pdf. In short: If error detected? 1. print to terminal the kind of the error, with location 2. create pdf, if non_fatal_error 3. throw a fatal error As far as I know, the third point was introduced, because the first was ignored far too often. > nothing was produced Doesn't work for multi-file-compilation. To illustrate: Imagine three files file-I.ly file-II.ly file-III.ly file-II.ly contains nothing else than #(ly:error "~a" (*location*)) The other files will not cause any error/warning Now do lilypond file-I.ly file-II.ly file-III.ly You'll notice: LilyPond will compile file-I.ly with pdf file-II.ly causes a fatal error, Lilypond exits immediately file-III.ly will not be compiled at all. I'm aware Andrew intended to disregard multi-file-compilation, though we need to care about the entire functionality. So, how to do it reasonable different? Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user