Re: Revised version of waveform renderer on Rietveld that uses glpk

[Carl Sorensen]

On 7/2/10 12:03 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:12:03PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>>> It seems nice to be able to add this sort of thing to Lilypond, but I
>>>> think it rather strongly demonstrates Lilypond's lack of modularity:
>>>> this sort of thing should sit in a separate directory and be loaded
>>>> on-demand under user control without needing any resident code parts
>>>> when people don't use it.
>>> 
>>> If it was all done in scheme, this would be easy.  :)
>> 
>> I don't think so, since properties and contexts are defined and
>> initialized globally right now, and we don't have a system for
>> modularizing documentation.
> 
> Can't new contexts be defined by the user?  I'll admit that I
> don't think they can create new properties...
> 
> I was basically just thinking of things like ancient notation, or
> the beautiful "packages" / "files" / "modules" / "whatever we
> shoudl call them" that Reinhold and Nicholas put together, like
> stuff for title pages or orchestralily.  As a naive ex-user, I'd
> call those "modules", but that might be misusing a technical term.


Although I'm not going to work on this right now (got to get the autobeaming
stuff done first!), it seems like we ought to be able to define something
that works kind of like \usepackage.

Properties are defined in Scheme, and hence, could be added to from scheme,
at least as far as I can see without  trying it myself.

New contexts can certainly be defined in .ly files.

Interfaces are defined in scheme, and thus should be modifiable.

Music types are defined in scheme.

We now have the capability of defining engravers in Scheme.

We may be missing iterators and performers, I guess.

Documentation is *not* currently modular (as David has expressed before).
It would be cool to have some kind of a master documentation runner that
could be called on a module, and would know how to get the appropriate
.itely file and turn it into a little documentation file for the feature.

I really like David's thoughts about how it would be cool to have LilyPond
be modular like TeX/LaTeX.  But that's certainly postponed to after 2.14 as
far as I'm concerned.

Thanks,

Carl


Thanks,

Carl



> 
> Cheers,
> - Graham
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel