[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by ad
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:53:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:00 PM <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 2020/02/09 17:18:19, hanwenn wrote:
>> > David, please take another look.
>>
>> First, you are aware that the rationale for
>>
>> This commit fixes a problem with GUILE 2.2.6, where LilyPond
>> calculates offsets in the source file as bytes, while GUILE
>> interprets
>> the source file as UTF-8 encoded Unicode. As a result, files with
>> Unicode before embedded scheme break completely.
>>
>> is fixed in current master?
>
>
> Yes. See also the list of commits that are effectively reverted by this
> commit.
>
> Note that there is still an off-by one error in the handling of closures
> and parsing #{
>
> which makes the satb template regtests fail, both in GUILE 1.8 and 2.x
I assume that you mean your patch since I get make test to compile on
either current master or the dev/guile-v2-work branch (once I apply the
fix for display-lily-tests from issue 5743).
You recently introduced another string conversion function for UTF-8.
It is possible that the problem you were trying to fix is related to the
locale fiddling in the remaining two patches from the dev/guile-v2-work
branch, so I cannot rule out that you may have already rendered the last
two remaining awkward-looking patches for the build system unnecessary.
But I don't think we have a test case readily available for that.
--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction. To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), (continued)
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/02/09
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), dak, 2020/02/09
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/02/10
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/02/10
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/02/10
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), David Kastrup, 2020/02/10
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/02/10
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), David Kastrup, 2020/02/10
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/02/11
- Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden),
David Kastrup <=
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/02/11
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), lemzwerg, 2020/02/13
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/02/13
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/02/13
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/02/13
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/02/19
Re: Parse inline scheme using per-expression port (issue 557330043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/02/26