Re: [frogs] Regression test file for Trackers 714 and 832

[Patrick McCarty <pnorcks@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Ian Hulin <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Patrick McCarty wrote:
>> Your patch is saved in ASCII, but it should be saved in UTF-8.  I'll
>> provide some more comments for you below.
>
> It's in UTF-8 on my system here.
> ???!!
> Thunderbird says it's set to use UTF-8 encoding, so I'm puzzled.  I'll try
> compressing the revised patch into an archive and see it that gets through
> unscathed.

IIRC, Thunderbird has been mangling attachments for people in certain
situations.  The compressed version got through okay.

>> I think it would be better if this regtest were named
>> "output-suffix.ly", because that is the only thing you are testing.
>
> No it's not.  What's actually being tested is that Lilypond does not produce
> a gobbledygook name for the back-end processor (e.g. ghostscript) to
> process.
> What's actually being tested is lilypond's internal replacement for the
> Scheme format function, which is where Reinhold found the bug.
>
> The output-suffix variable is the means to the end since the the regression
> tests have to have a descriptive name, and I haven't found a way of
> re-setting the output name for the file within the source file from Scheme
> or Lilypond from before Tracker 836 was accepted, and this bug showed up way
> back.

Okay, I'll admit that I didn't look of the tracker issues carefully
enough to realize this.  Sorry.

>> Is it really necessary to add an excerpt from an actual composition
>> when you are just testing output-suffix to make sure it works with
>> various UTF-8 characters?
>
> It seemed a very good way of getting representative sample of extended Latin
> characters.  Not all the accents caused the problem with the back-end
> processing - e.g. ç is OK, č isn't, ü, û and ú  are OK, ů isn't.
> There aren't any bits of actual composition in there, just the names, so no
> copyright issues.
> It's now pruned down to one \book (see below).

Okay, I like that better.

>> For consistency, I would recommend writing this as
>>
>>   #(define output-suffix "...")
>>
>> instead.  IMO, it's cleaner and this is how it's used in the
>> documentation.  The question marks will go away once you have saved
>> the file in UTF-8.
>
> I disagree.
> Never drop into Scheme if it can be avoided.
> The bit in the documentation is mega-hard to find, and it's being superseded
> as the recommended way of doing this by \bookOutputSuffix anyway once the
> fix for Tracker 836 goes in.

Okay, that's fine.  I suppose I was objecting to this because the
Scheme define syntax seems less awkward to me than using double quotes
around a variable name.

-Patrick

---
----
Join the Frogs!