>> If compiling the file has failed to such a degree that we are choosing
>> to call it a "fatal error," that means the PDF is *not* suitable for
>> further use. Conversely, if you think the generated PDF is still
>> useful, then don't call what happened a "fatal error" - it must have
>> really been a warning.
>
> With that definition, any error that does not terminally destroy the
> computer is not a fatal error since otherwise you can still debug the
> problem.
I for one happen to think that the way lilypond handles syntax errors is
totally reasonable and actually beneficial to users, but I still don’t get the
usage of the term “fatal”. Consider the following lilypond input file:
{ a }
b
{ c }
Lilypond would expectedly complain about line 2, then proceed to put together
the PDF file and finally exit with a “fatal error”. The PDF File would include
2 scores, so that means right after encountering the syntax error on line 2, it
continued to correctly process line 3. So what was it that was fatal about
this? Is this a matter of some internal implementation details we don’t
understand or what? And again, how is this any different than a non-fatal error?
Sharon_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
