Re: SOLVED: going backwards in time

[Adam James Wilson]

Hi Han-Wen,

I see -- so even with my arithmetic error (which started as a tiny
offset of 9/6319), we should expect Lily to render the score.

I can see that if fractional relations get complex enough to require
more precision than 32-bit values, there could be a problem.

Is a possible solution to use 64-bit representation internally?

Best regards,
Adam

On 11/29/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2007/11/29, Trevor Bača <address@hidden>:
>
> > Excellent. I think what clued me in was the error message about going
> > *backwards* in time ...
> >
> > And, yes: I think Han-Wen and the gurus really *really* got it right on the
> > time-keeping: AFAICS, it's all rationals all the time and so completely
> > exact.
>
> Actually, lily should never go backwards in time, not even if you have
> really wonky time sigs and tuplets, so this is definitively a bug.
> One possibility is that you have an overflow error: the rationals use
> 32 bit integers, so they easily overflow if you do strange things.
>
> --
> Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
>