Re: Lilypond error behaviour

[Sharon Rosner]

> And secondly, to me it seems clear why the error is termed "fatal" - the 
> parser aborted. You don't want a compilation error to return a fatal error to 
> "make" and, because it receives a fatal error, make throws a fatal error and 
> crashes too, do you? The question is WHERE in the stack do we actually trap 
> and handle the error.

No. As I demonstrated, the parser in fact does not abort. It continues 
correctly parsing the rest of the input after encountering the error. So what 
is exactly “fatal” here?

> Lilypond, imho, makes the correct decision FOR THE USER, traps the error, and 
> then turns the incomplete output, from the *crashed* parser, into an 
> incomplete pdf.

Again, these are two separate things. The fact that Lilypond continues 
processing the input is fine. The error reporting to me seems misleading.

Sharon