Re: Lilypond error behaviour

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> That being said, if (as in David K’s example) one or more
> sub-compilations fails “fatally” — in other words, it would have
> resulted in no meaningful/useful/concrete/verifiable output if it were
> the sole compilation task — then the log should reflect that in some
> way: it should indicate that *some*
> meaningful/useful/concrete/verifiable output had been achieved, but
> possibly not *all* of it as expected by the user.

Except that the premise of this thread was that users refuse to look
_at_ _all_ at _any_ messages or error status and instead want to be able
to deduce the presence of errors from the existence of output files.

So it pretty much doesn't matter what we write on the console: it's not
acceptable for LilyPond to produce any file in case of a syntax error.

> Nobody ever said good error handling and reporting was easy.  =)

To me this does not sound as much as "not easy" rather than "rigged".

-- 
David Kastrup