bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hairpin with text inside


From: Rutger Hofman
Subject: Re: Hairpin with text inside
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:19:31 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0

On 07/28/2016 04:05 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Rutger Hofman <address@hidden> writes:

On 07/28/2016 01:40 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Rutger Hofman <address@hidden> writes:

I am not top-posting

Hello list,

I grabbed LSR 233 (hairpin with centered text below/above) and
modified it to have text *inside* the hairpin, at the right for \< and
at the left for \>. This worked fine for me until approx. \version
2.19.27 or so. Now I am at 2.19.39, and this code throws me an
assertion failure:

/home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-64/src/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-release-unstable/flower/include/drul-array.hh:35:
T& Drul_array<T>::at(Direction) [with T = double]: Assertion `d == 1
|| d == -1' failed.

If I replace line 10
   Y CENTER
with line 11
   Y DOWN
the assertion goes away, but obviously the text is not printed inside
the slur but below it.

Before, everything worked fine for me without this assertion. Can the
assertion please be removed again in newer releases?

Any reason you are not writing Y UP here?


I want the text to be inside the hairpin, not above or below it. And
this used to work just fine...

Well, obviously the code does not do anything intentionally for the
CENTER setting and taking the assertion out would just lead to a
partially random result since the indexing will then effectively revert
to "DOWN".  What you want is an explicit support of the CENTER setting,
not a combination of bugs that happens to do more or less accidentally
what you want.

Can you run this in a debugger so that one can get a backtrace and see
where the defective indexing actually occurs?  Then it should be
possible to code an explicit behavior there.


Right.

My lilypond is built without debugging symbols. It is full of:
#4  0x000000000040e1c0 in ?? ()
etc etc, no useful lilypond frames (there is a meaningful frame in assert.c:101).

Do you still want the backtrace?

Rutger




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]