Introduce a maximum depth for markup evaluation

Introduce a maximum depth for markup evaluation

This will fix cases where a markup function calls itself (or other functions) recursively with different arguments.

This patch builds on http://codereview.appspot.com/5027042/ . I cannot be directly applied to master. You will have to apply the 5027042 patch first.

[Reinhold, 2011-09-15 13:47:07]

Please review!

[Ian Hulin (gmail), 2011-09-15 19:57:12]

http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm
File scm/lily.scm (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm#newcode125
scm/lily.scm:125: it will not terminate at all and print out a warning, but
continue processing.")
In the regression test the doc-text says 
"Markups have a maximum depth to prevent non-termination."
your doc-text here seems to say something different, i.e. you'll print out the
warning and let it carry on until Lily runs our of memory or whatever.  Which is
right?

[pkx166h, 2011-09-15 20:07:36]

passes make and reg tests (with other patch applied first and this one on top)

[reinhold_kainhofer.com, 2011-09-15 20:12:20]

Am Thursday, 15. September 2011, 21:57:12 schrieben Sie:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm
> File scm/lily.scm (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm#newcode125
> scm/lily.scm:125: it will not terminate at all and print out a warning,
> but continue processing.")
> In the regression test the doc-text says
> "Markups have a maximum depth to prevent non-termination."
> your doc-text here seems to say something different, i.e. you'll print
> out the warning and let it carry on until Lily runs our of memory or
> whatever.  Which is right?

No, I meant that as soon as the maximum depth is reached, I return a null 
markup, so that the normal processing can continue without the markup looping 
until we run out of memory.

I'll reword the doctitle.

Cheers,
Reinhold


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinhold@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org

[Reinhold, 2011-09-15 20:37:07]

http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm
File scm/lily.scm (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm#newcode125
scm/lily.scm:125: it will not terminate at all and print out a warning, but
continue processing.")
On 2011/09/15 19:57:12, Ian Hulin (gmail) wrote:
> In the regression test the doc-text says 
> "Markups have a maximum depth to prevent non-termination."
> your doc-text here seems to say something different, i.e. you'll print out the
> warning and let it carry on until Lily runs our of memory or whatever.  Which
is
> right?

2nd try: "Maximum depth for the markup tree. If a markup has more levels, assume
it will not terminate on its own, print a warning and return a null markup
instead."

[Ian Hulin (gmail), 2011-09-15 21:26:54]

On 2011/09/15 20:37:07, Reinhold wrote:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm
> File scm/lily.scm (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5032041/diff/1/scm/lily.scm#newcode125
> scm/lily.scm:125: it will not terminate at all and print out a warning, but
> continue processing.")
> On 2011/09/15 19:57:12, Ian Hulin (gmail) wrote:
> > In the regression test the doc-text says 
> > "Markups have a maximum depth to prevent non-termination."
> > your doc-text here seems to say something different, i.e. you'll print out
the
> > warning and let it carry on until Lily runs our of memory or whatever. 
Which
> is
> > right?
> 
> 2nd try: "Maximum depth for the markup tree. If a markup has more levels,
assume
> it will not terminate on its own, print a warning and return a null markup
> instead."

LGTM

Cheers, Ian

[Ian Hulin (gmail), 2011-09-15 21:28:37]

LGTM with revised doc-text in define-syntax-function.

[dak, 2011-09-15 21:32:27]

On 2011/09/15 21:28:37, Ian Hulin (gmail) wrote:
> LGTM with revised doc-text in define-syntax-function.

Uh, I am revising the doc-text (as well as rewriting some code), but that's a
different issue altogether.