Re: Lilypond error behaviour

[Sharon Rosner]

> 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.

Actually the premise of this thread was something altogether different, and
I'd rather believe it's a simple case of misunderstanding than you trying
deliberately to make any sort of healthy debate futile:

Andrew started with:

> Wouldn’t a complete syntax error stop processing?

Then Simon wrote:

> To me, the oddity would be in that Lily speaks of a ‘fatal error’ here.

That's the whole premise for you right there. The existence or absence of
output files is just a corollary.

If we can further pinpoint the discussion, given the current way lilypond
handles parsing (or other) errors, what *is* the meaning of 'fatal error'?

Sharon



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lilypond-error-behaviour-tp189622p189688.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.