Re: Segmentation Fault in music with cueDuring

[Patrick Karl]

On 12/29/15 6:58 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote:

On 30.12.2015 01:06, Patrick Karl wrote:

On 12/29/15 5:53 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote:

Hello Pat,

this is definitely a bug, I’d say. I’ll write to the bug list.
Two or three policy issues with this:
1. Don’t hijack existing threads, if your message has nothing at all to do with their subject. Just compose a new message to the list – sorry, but what’s so difficult about that?

Just out of curiosity, exactly what existing thread do you think I hijacked?

I can only guess how you proceeded, but if you reply to a previous message and edit all of the visible information, hidden data will still link this mail to the previous thread.

Bingo! (Slang for "you hit the nail on the head", which itself is slang for "you got it exactly right".)  I have to confess that even after 30 years of working with various unices, mail generally remains a black hole for me. 

I get the lilypond-user digest.  If I want to reply to an individual message in one of the digests, I know of no other way than replying to the digest while editing out all the other messages in the digest and changing the reply's subject to the one in the individual message I'm responding to.  So what I did here was similar.

2. (Re)read and follow <http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html>.

Again, out of curiosity, how is my snippet not a tiny-example?

When trying to create an example, try commenting out (% or %{ … %}) sections of your file. If you can comment something while still demonstrating the main idea, then remove the commented-material.

Have a look at issue 4718 (link in my previous post) – there’s a tiny example.

When I look at issue 4718, I see:  \new Staff \new Voice \music, which contains "\new Voice", which I didn't use in my original submission.  If I look at the "Tiny examples" link you sent me in your previous post, I see:

When trying to create an example, try commenting out (% or %{ … %}) sections of your file. If you can comment something while still demonstrating the main idea, then remove the commented-material.

But that applies to your "\new Voice" addition.  So, using your criteria, I don't see how issue 4718 is actually a tiny example.  It looks like you added the "\new Voice" to avoid the issue discussed in the original thread I hijacked.  But it really doesn't add anything to the discussion of this issue.

I guess my approach might be called "minimal example" rather than "tiny example".  Especially since the problem was that lilypond terminated abnormally, I felt I could save the investigators some time if I included, in a minimal way, everything that I knew about the problem.  In this case, my submission showed that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with either the quoted or the quoting music.  I then included a commented out section that would trigger the problem if compiled in uncommented form.

3. Code formatting: Generally, always surround {} and = and Scheme expressions (those with `#') with spaces, even if they’re not technically necessary. They make it easier to read.

I didn't realize that coding style was a policy issue.

Yes, it is. If you post code to the list, others have to read and work with that code. Privately, you may do whatever you like.

Where is this policy enunciated?  Shouldn't there be a link to it at the point a person subscribes to the list, i.e., at https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user?

Offhand I don't see any {} that are not surrounded by white space, i.e., blank, tab, or newline.  That leaves Scheme expressions.  I would say I can easily find many examples of exactly the style I choose in the NR.

Then it would have been messed up on the way. Attachments tend to be safer there. Find attached the version which arrived here and one with proper use of whitespace.
Sorry for being so strict with this.

Many of the differences in the two versions you attached appear to be due to you thinking I have used too much whitespace.  There is one case (\score { \new Staff {\cueNotes } }) where I have inadvertently omitted a space after a "{".  I think we're back to the Scheme expressions.  I use Frescobaldi to write LilyPond code. When I enter "\score {  \new Staff { \rem", Frescobaldi presents a list of the possible completions, and I click on the one I want.  Frescobaldi then supplies "removeWithTag" without a trailing space.  I then add #' etc.  I wonder if it wouldn't be nice if Frescobaldi supplied "removeWithTag #' " instead.  I don't think there are any occasions where anything except "#' " can follow \removeWithTag.

I also wonder why LilyPond even accepts \removeWithTag#' without a space before #'.

I call nitpicking.  Mea minima culpa.

Yours, Simon