Re: Exited with return code -1073741819.

[David Wright]

On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 15:23:21 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> "Andrew Bernard" <address@hidden> writes:
> > Hi Ming,
> > We have been through this before, I am sorry to say. You write
> > lilypond code in a way that compiles, yes, but it is pathological in
> > the extreme, to put it mildly. You set each and every bar as a
> > variable, and when there are several voices, introduce new parallel
> > voices in every bar. As an example for the others, this is what you
> > do:
> >
> > lft.46 = { <<{g2 f2}\\{d1}>> |}
> >
> > lft.47 = { <<{r4 ef4~ <ef g>2}\\{g,1}>> |}
> 
> Those are not "new parallel voices": they still connect.  See:
> 
> {
>   << c''1~ \\ e'1~ >>
>   << c''1 \\ e'1 >>
> }
> 
> << ... \\ ... >> translates to
> << \context Voice = "1" ... \context Voice = "2" ... >>
> 
> so when the parallel voices line up perfectly in time, they still happen
> to connect.  It still makes a hash of understanding the code and
> debugging it and may well trigger rare problems in our context handling.
> 
> Without very good reason, choosing such a non-structure definitely looks
> like creating more problems than it solves.

Well, the reasons were given in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-03/msg00609.html
but I can't see that a construction like

sop.12 = \sop.1
sop.13 = \sop.1
sop.14 = \sop.1
sop.15 = \sop.1
sop.16 = \sop.5
sop.17 = \sop.1
sop.18 = \sop.1
sop.19 = \sop.1
sop.20 = \sop.1
sop.21 = \sop.5

is any less error-prone than

R1 * 5 \break
R1 * 5 \break

nor can I imagine that it involves any less copy&paste, unless all the
sop sop sop stuff was actually typed in. At least the source is not
obfuscated, which it was last time.

Anyway, with a few global edits, the source compiles just fine.
Last page attached.

Cheers,
David.

pg_0007.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document