[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is there an equivalent of #define ... #ifndef ... #endif in lilypond

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Is there an equivalent of #define ... #ifndef ... #endif in lilypond?
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:08:43 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux)

Michael Hendry <address@hidden> writes:

> I find it hard when groping in the dark with two unfamiliar languages
> to pin down which of them is not doing what I want it to do, and to
> distinguish what might be a fault in the implementation of the
> languages from a (much more likely) fault in my code.

The error messages tend to be rather helpful for figuring that out.

> However, my own limited experience of writing software for others to
> use has shown that the blundering path of a novice in unfamiliar
> territory can reveal faults in nooks and crannies that an experienced
> user wouldn't stray into!

It's not often easy to tell which nooks and crannies are a part of the
design, which are a sideeffect, and which are a bug.  Changes that leave
the bugs indistinguishable from the rest are really hard to design, and
LilyPond is work in progress in many respects.

> The process of downloading, compiling and installing a source package
> is not all that fearsome to me - because there is a very clear set of
> instructions - unless it fails at some point, when I'm unlikely to be
> able to sort out the problem.
> I'm probably not even looking in the right place, but I wouldn't know
> how to start "tracking the development version".


> I see that 2.16 is due out shortly - I can't work out whether this will
> include the solution to issue 2343 (which emerged from this thread).

Likely, but no warranties.  2.16 has been due out shortly several times
already, including something like half a year ago.

> If so, I'm quite happy to adjust the faulty filenames by hand until
> it's released.

Sure: if this has been the only problem you ever wished to be in the
loop for, installing from master would be overkill.  It also does not
make much sense when you don't intend updating frequently.

I just wanted to point that option out since, seeing how you were
apparently comfortable installing from source, it might be of interest
to you.  And of course, other developers.  Timely feedback is always

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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