Thanks Thomas, > We do this already, (but see below for multi-file-compilation).
Ok, that's good. > 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. Ok, then why is this 3. called fatal? Wouldn't it make sense to tell the user at the end: severe (a) error(s) occured and exit with a non-zero exit code? But not call it a failed file or fatal? >> nothing was produced > > Doesn't work for multi-file-compilation. My expectation would be that the worst error wins (and I realize that this differs from what I wrote before). So, it is fatal if any output could not be produced and it has a severe error if any severe error occured. I don't know if that's possible but it seems likely to me. > So, how to do it reasonable different? As above: Call the rethrown 'fatal error' (3) 'severe error'. Cheers, Joram _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user