2007/11/29, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Excellent. I think what clued me in was the error message about going > *backwards* in time ... > > And, yes: I think Han-Wen and the gurus really *really* got it right on the > time-keeping: AFAICS, it's all rationals all the time and so completely > exact.
Actually, lily should never go backwards in time, not even if you have really wonky time sigs and tuplets, so this is definitively a bug. One possibility is that you have an overflow error: the rationals use 32 bit integers, so they easily overflow if you do strange things. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
