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

[Dan Eble]

> On Jul 5, 2022, at 08:05, Dan Eble <dan@lyric.works> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I'll try to explain this more clearly.  I doubt that we actually disagree about 
this.  I did not mean that those two cases should be handled the same in every 
respect.  My thoughts were focused on creating spanners at the end of the score.

Warning about a score ending in c1*0\< is likely to be helpful.

Creating a weird hairpin grob because no \fine was observed is not likely to be 
helpful; rather, it is likely to lead to other errors like in issue 6372.
--
Dan