Re: \fine, pre-process-in-final-translation-timestep & co.

[Dan Eble]

On Jul 5, 2022, at 02:11, Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
> 
> On 7/5/22 02:03, Dan Eble wrote:
>> Don't focus too closely on \fine.  Engraving in the final timestep should be 
>> orderly whether it is caused by \fine or the natural end of the input.  
>> You're just more likely to get into interesting situations by something sane 
>> like
>> 
>>     … \fine c1\< …
>> 
>> than by something crazy like
>> 
>>     … c1*0\<
> 
> 
> 
> I actually disagree. For me, an ideal design engraves
> { ... \fine c1\< } just fine, but warns upon seeing
> { ... c1*0\< } because that sounds like a mistake and
> a diagnostic is helpful.

I didn't say there should be no warning.  I said engraving should be orderly.  
Do we agree that c1*0\< should not warn AND THEN create an unusual spanner 
anyway, risking downstream errors like issue 6372 [1]?  I'm pretty sure we do.
— 
Dan

[1] https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6372