Hi David, I know played a little with your fix issue 5181
On current topic: 2017-09-14 15:57 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning > message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Would > >>>>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent >>>>> \mark "X" >>>>> (c4) c c c > > be any better? I'd go for post-event(s) Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below > Or not mention the expedient of <> at all (might make it > harder for the user to figure out a workaround for his situation)? I'd likely drop mentioning <> Other thoughts. I tested: { -1 -- -\markup "foo" -\tweak outside-staff-priority #200 \upbow -\tweak outside-staff-priority #-200 \fermata d' } Which throws the warning, but works nicely otherwise. But { -\3 -\rightHandFinger #2 d'4 } issues the warning, the image doesn't contain the post-events, though. Not a problem of your patch, because a spelled out version fails as well: { <>\3\rightHandFinger #2 d'4 } I guess it's because the post-events are attached to an event-chord and not a note-event, since { d'4\3\rightHandFinger #2 } works as expected. But I'm guessing... Nevertheless, the current warning feels like lily would fix the problem, but doesn't. Your patch-descriptions reads (among other stuff): "Parser: Add reverse_music_list function This function does not just reverse a music list but also integrates post events into the respective preceding expressions. If that is not possible, a warning is printed and they are either dropped or attached to an empty chord (depending on a call parameter). " So I'd rather expect a warning if stuff is dropped. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user