Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Actually,  [c16 d e f] is *not* valid lilypond.  The first brace needs to
>> come after the c16:
>
>> So I don't think there's a problem with the options coming after the
>> {lilypond}.
>
> Oh right.  Wow.

Took a look at lilypond-book.py.  Did one change and am just now
recompiling.

The change is fairly obvious (hope it works):

diff --git a/scripts/lilypond-book.py b/scripts/lilypond-book.py
index b4bd319..da13ab9 100644
--- a/scripts/lilypond-book.py
+++ b/scripts/lilypond-book.py
@@ -467,7 +467,10 @@ snippet_res = {
           \\begin\s*(
           \[
            \s*(?P<options>.*?)\s*
-          \])?\s*{lilypond}
+          \])?\s*{lilypond}(?(options)|(\s*
+            \[
+             \s*(?P<options>.*?)\s*
+            \])?)
            (?P<code>.*?)
           ^[^%\n]*?
           \\end\s*{lilypond})''',

However, I am doing this more or less pattern-based without any
knowledge of the program structure, and lilypond-book.py _also_ contains

        FILTER: r'''\begin{lilypond}[%(options)s]
%(code)s
\end{lilypond}''',

which already _has_ the normal LaTeX order for some reason.  So what
gives?

-- 
David Kastrup