lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LSR current problems


From: Thomas Morley
Subject: Re: LSR current problems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:46:23 +0100

Am Di., 5. Jan. 2021 um 02:16 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>
> Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > with upcoming 2.22.0 in mind I had a closer look at the LSR and the
> > work needed to upgrade it.
> >
> > Currently there is something buggy there: The downloadable tarball is
> > not complete.
> > Thus
> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/contributor/updating-the-lsr-to-a-new-version
> > does not work.
> > Thanks a lot to Werner and his perl-script making it possible to get
> > all snippets and pointing me in the correct direction.
> >
> > I stumbled across some problems while upgrading all snippets to 2.20.0
> > (probably better to skip 2.20.0 and go directly to 2.22.0)
> >
> >
> > (1)
> > Some snippets use nested define-music/scheme-functions and convert-ly
> > fails to do a proper job.
> >
> > A silly example:
> > \version "2.18.2"
> >
> > foo =
> > #(define-music-function (parser location m1)(ly:music?)
> >  (let ((blub
> >          (define-music-function (parser location m2) (ly:music?)
> >            #{ \tweak color #red $m2 #})))
> >     #{ $m1 $blub $m1 #}))
> >
> > \foo c'4
> >
> > converty-ly returns:
> >
> > convert-ly (GNU LilyPond) 2.20.0
> >
> > convert-ly: Processing `test.ly'...
> > Applying conversion: 2.19.2, 2.19.7, 2.19.11, 2.19.16, 2.19.22,
> > 2.19.24, 2.19.28, 2.19.29, 2.19.32, 2.19.40, 2.19.46, 2.19.49,
> > 2.19.80, 2.20.0
> >
> >
> > \version "2.20.0"
> >
> > foo =
> > #(define-music-function (m1)(ly:music?)
> >  (let ((blub
> >          (define-music-function ((*parser*) (*location*) m2) (ly:music?)
> >            #{ \tweak color #red $m2 #})))
> >     #{ $m1 $blub $m1 #}))
> >
> > \foo c'4
> >
> > Can this be fixed?
>
> <https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/597>
>
> Would likely warrant some testing...
>
> --
> David Kastrup

>From first testings: works fine.

Many thanks,
  Harm



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]