Re: that acciaccatura issue

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I am amazed/surprised/confounded on the amount of time and effort
> that has been expended on a justification of the "minimal"
> requirement what could have been spent on just viewing (via
> Frescobaldi not a PDF) the "errors" in my code.  (Wow that was a run
> on!).

Mark,


we try to *educate* you!  I don't understand why you pretend being a
novice.  You are staying long enough on this mailing list that you
actually should already know how to create a minimum example just by
reading other e-mails.

For your given example it might have been possible by experts to
correctly deduce that the issue at hand was the time signature and not
the grace note.  But what about the next example?  And the next after
the next one?

> How then can/should I be castigated for my inability?

Sorry to say, but this sounds like a lame excuse for not trying
yourself to reduce the input data.  Leaving out a line here and there
isn't rocket science!  I have to do *exactly* the same to find out
potential bugs and/or problems, and it costs me a non-trivial amount
of time to do the reduction until I get a minimum (or small) example.

> May I suggest that if my, or any other beginners, snippet is not
> minimal enough for any reader, that the reader just close out the
> e-mail?  Or a group of competent coders could take it upon
> themselves to attend to the particular needs of the beginner.

Again: you do not longer count as a beginner, at least for me, so
please do us a favour in reducing future examples as much as you can.
In case you are stuck with a further reduction, people on this list
will certainly assist you.


    Werner