[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: lilypond-user
Subject: Re: Segmentation Fault in music with cueDuring
From: Patrick Karl <jpkarl () gmail ! com>
Date: 2015-12-30 13:58:39
Message-ID: 5683E30F.9080609 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On 12/29/15 6:58 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 30.12.2015 01:06, Patrick Karl wrote:
>> On 12/29/15 5:53 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>>> Hello Pat,
>>>
>>> this is definitely a bug, I’d say. I’ll write to the bug list.
>>> Two or three policy issues with this:
>>> 1. Don’t hijack existing threads, if your message has nothing at all
>>> to do with their subject. Just compose a new message to the list –
>>> sorry, but what’s so difficult about that?
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, exactly what existing thread do you think I
>> hijacked?
>
> I can only guess how you proceeded, but if you reply to a previous
> message and edit all of the visible information, hidden data will
> still link this mail to the previous thread.
Bingo! (Slang for "you hit the nail on the head", which itself is slang
for "you got it exactly right".) I have to confess that even after 30
years of working with various unices, mail generally remains a black
hole for me.
I get the lilypond-user digest. If I want to reply to an individual
message in one of the digests, I know of no other way than replying to
the digest while editing out all the other messages in the digest and
changing the reply's subject to the one in the individual message I'm
responding to. So what I did here was similar.
>
>>> 2. (Re)read and follow <http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html>.
>> Again, out of curiosity, how is my snippet not a tiny-example?
>>> When trying to create an example, try commenting out (|%| or |%{ …
>>> %}|) sections of your file. If you can comment something while still
>>> demonstrating the main idea, then remove the commented-material.
>>
>
> Have a look at issue 4718 (link in my previous post) – there’s a tiny
> example.
When I look at issue 4718, I see: \new Staff \new Voice \music, which
contains "\new Voice", which I didn't use in my original submission. If
I look at the "Tiny examples" link you sent me in your previous post, I see:
> When trying to create an example, try commenting out (% or %{ … %})
> sections of your file. If you can comment something while still
> demonstrating the main idea, then remove the commented-material.
But that applies to your "\new Voice" addition. So, using your
criteria, I don't see how issue 4718 is actually a tiny example. It
looks like you added the "\new Voice" to avoid the issue discussed in
the original thread I hijacked. But it really doesn't add anything to
the discussion of this issue.
I guess my approach might be called "minimal example" rather than "tiny
example". Especially since the problem was that lilypond terminated
abnormally, I felt I could save the investigators some time if I
included, in a minimal way, everything that I knew about the problem.
In this case, my submission showed that there was nothing intrinsically
wrong with either the quoted or the quoting music. I then included a
commented out section that would trigger the problem if compiled in
uncommented form.
>
>>> 3. Code formatting: Generally, always surround {} and = and Scheme
>>> expressions (those with `#') with spaces, even if they’re not
>>> technically necessary. They make it easier to read.
>>
>> I didn't realize that coding style was a policy issue.
>
> Yes, it is. If you post code to the list, others have to read and work
> with that code. Privately, you may do whatever you like.
Where is this policy enunciated? Shouldn't there be a link to it at the
point a person subscribes to the list, i.e., at
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user?
>
>> Offhand I don't see any {} that are not surrounded by white space,
>> i.e., blank, tab, or newline. That leaves Scheme expressions. I
>> would say I can easily find many examples of exactly the style I
>> choose in the NR.
>
> Then it would have been messed up on the way. Attachments tend to be
> safer there. Find attached the version which arrived here and one with
> proper use of whitespace.
> Sorry for being so strict with this.
Many of the differences in the two versions you attached appear to be
due to you thinking I have used too much whitespace. There is one case
(\score { \new Staff {\cueNotes } }) where I have inadvertently omitted
a space after a "{". I think we're back to the Scheme expressions. I
use Frescobaldi to write LilyPond code. When I enter "\score { \new
Staff { \rem", Frescobaldi presents a list of the possible completions,
and I click on the one I want. Frescobaldi then supplies "removeWithTag"
without a trailing space. I then add #' etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be
nice if Frescobaldi supplied "removeWithTag #' " instead. I don't think
there are any occasions where anything except "#' " can follow
\removeWithTag.
I also wonder why LilyPond even accepts \removeWithTag#' without a space
before #'.
I call nitpicking. Mea minima culpa.
>
> Yours, Simon
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/29/15 6:58 PM, Simon Albrecht
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56832C40.6020504@mail.de" type="cite">On
30.12.2015 01:06, Patrick Karl wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 12/29/15 5:53 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hello Pat,
<br>
<br>
this is definitely a bug, I’d say. I’ll write to the bug list.
<br>
Two or three policy issues with this:
<br>
1. Don’t hijack existing threads, if your message has nothing
at all to do with their subject. Just compose a new message to
the list – sorry, but what’s so difficult about that?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just out of curiosity, exactly what existing thread do you think
I hijacked?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can only guess how you proceeded, but if you reply to a previous
message and edit all of the visible information, hidden data will
still link this mail to the previous thread.
<br>
</blockquote>
Bingo! (Slang for "you hit the nail on the head", which itself is
slang for "you got it exactly right".) I have to confess that even
after 30 years of working with various unices, mail generally
remains a black hole for me. <br>
<br>
I get the lilypond-user digest. If I want to reply to an individual
message in one of the digests, I know of no other way than replying
to the digest while editing out all the other messages in the digest
and changing the reply's subject to the one in the individual
message I'm responding to. So what I did here was similar.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56832C40.6020504@mail.de" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">2. (Re)read and follow
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" \
href="http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html"><http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html></a>.
<br>
</blockquote>
Again, out of curiosity, how is my snippet not a tiny-example?
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
When trying to create an example, try commenting out (<code>%</code>
or <code>%{ … %}</code>) sections of your file. If you
can comment something while still demonstrating the main idea,
then remove the commented-material.
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Have a look at issue 4718 (link in my previous post) – there’s a
tiny example.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
When I look at issue 4718, I see: <span class="k">\new</span>
Staff <span class="k">\new</span> Voice <span class="k">\music,
which contains "\new Voice", which I didn't use in my original
submission. If I look at the "Tiny examples" link you sent me in
your previous post, I see:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">When trying to create an example, try
commenting out (% or %{ … %}) sections of your file. If you can
comment something while still demonstrating the main idea, then
remove the commented-material. <br>
</blockquote>
But that applies to your "\new Voice" addition. So, using your
criteria, I don't see how issue 4718 is actually a tiny example.
It looks like you added the "\new Voice" to avoid the issue
discussed in the original thread I hijacked. But it really
doesn't add anything to the discussion of this issue.<br>
<br>
I guess my approach might be called "minimal example" rather than
"tiny example". Especially since the problem was that lilypond
terminated abnormally, I felt I could save the investigators some
time if I included, in a minimal way, everything that I knew about
the problem. In this case, my submission showed that there was
nothing intrinsically wrong with either the quoted or the quoting
music. I then included a commented out section that would trigger
the problem if compiled in uncommented form.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
<blockquote cite="mid:56832C40.6020504@mail.de" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">3. Code formatting: Generally, always
surround {} and = and Scheme expressions (those with `#') with
spaces, even if they’re not technically necessary. They make
it easier to read.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I didn't realize that coding style was a policy issue.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, it is. If you post code to the list, others have to read and
work with that code. Privately, you may do whatever you like. <br>
</blockquote>
Where is this policy enunciated? Shouldn't there be a link to it at
the point a person subscribes to the list, i.e., at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user">https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user</a>?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56832C40.6020504@mail.de" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Offhand I don't see any {} that are not
surrounded by white space, i.e., blank, tab, or newline. That
leaves Scheme expressions. I would say I can easily find many
examples of exactly the style I choose in the NR.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Then it would have been messed up on the way. Attachments tend to
be safer there. Find attached the version which arrived here and
one with proper use of whitespace.
<br>
Sorry for being so strict with this.
<br>
</blockquote>
Many of the differences in the two versions you attached appear to
be due to you thinking I have used too much whitespace. There is
one case (\score { \new Staff {\cueNotes } }) where I have
inadvertently omitted a space after a "{". I think we're back to
the Scheme expressions. I use Frescobaldi to write LilyPond code.
When I enter "\score { \new Staff { \rem", Frescobaldi presents a
list of the possible completions, and I click on the one I want.
Frescobaldi then supplies "removeWithTag" without a trailing space.
I then add #' etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be nice if Frescobaldi
supplied "removeWithTag #' " instead. I don't think there are any
occasions where anything except "#' " can follow \removeWithTag.<br>
<br>
I also wonder why LilyPond even accepts \removeWithTag#' without a
space before #'.<br>
<br>
I call nitpicking. Mea minima culpa.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote cite="mid:56832C40.6020504@mail.de" type="cite">
<br>
Yours, Simon
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic