Re: Add regtest for issue 5181 (issue 327470043 by address@hidden)

[thomasmorley65]

On 2017/09/25 21:53:06, dak wrote:
> On 2017/09/25 21:28:50, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> > Very nice, i.e LGTM
> >
> > Not sure whether this should be reflected by a reg-test, but
currently there
> is
> > no case in it triggering the warning like:
> >
> > warns = {
> >   \override NoteHead.color = #red
> >   c'1 d'
> >   \revert NoteHead.color
> > }
> > { \warns -1 e' }
> >

> Touché.  I was not sure about whether or not the behavior and warning
> for << {c'} -1 >> should be retained.  But your case looks pretty bad.
> I mean, sure, one could skip backwards over unusable music expressions
> as long as their length amounted to zero...  But it seems like
> inviting trouble.

> > And there are cases which will probably never work, like:
> >
> > fails = {
> >   d'-\tweak color #red
> >      %% with or without \etc
> >      \etc
> > }
> >
> > { \fails -1 e' }

> Ugh.  That's another of those "what do you even think \etc is" cases.

This one is easy.
\etc is a blackbox containing all my wishes to christmas.
;)

> Basically you need to come up with a reasonable definition of the
> expression

> { ... \etc }

> first.  I mean, the syntax does not yet seem taken so that does not
> seem impossible but it may still end up being tricky.

> > Not sure if we should mention it in the docs at all, or in "Known
> > issues and warnings" or elsewhere ...?

> So far I think it's more a case of reviewing "Known issues and
> warnings" for stuff that is no longer an issue.  I don't think that we
> have rigidly defined the limits of where you could place post-events,
> but we may have warned people off a few things.

Don't get me wrong, I don't suggest to make those examples work.
But we should think about increasing "naive" user expectations after
5181 will be released, imho.

5181 is great, but has limitations, we should be prepared to explain
them, i.e. point to relevant documentation or the like.

https://codereview.appspot.com/327470043/