Re: Modularity in lilypond

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:25:08PM +0200, Mike Solomon wrote:
> 1)  A folder would be created in (ie PATH/lilypond/2.X.X/module) in which
> all modules hung out so that Lilypond knew to look there.  Each module would
> have its own folder and could be internally organized however one fancies.

Kind-of like the /ly/ dir?

> 2)  A document would be created that invoked all modules that were
> perma-invoked.  That is, any module should be able to be called in a given
> document, but if the user wants certain modules to be called all the time,
> this document should do it.  Ideally, the document would be nothing more
> than a series of \include statements.  It would have to have a standard path
> that would not get overwritten from version to version (which would likely
> involve some copying and pasting combined with some simlinkery).

Like /ly/init.ly ?

> 3)  Certain current features of lilypond would need to be modularized.  This
> is probably the most difficult call, as it brings up the question "what
> should be part of non-modular lilypond"?  There are certain things, such as
> notes, dynamics, and slurs that seem like they should be in any typesetter,
> whereas woodwind fingering charts, fretboard diagrams, and harp pedals seem
> more modularish.

Like \include "gregorian.ly" ?

> P.P.S. It could be that such a modular system already exists and I am simply
> not privy to it, in which case I'd appreciate any feedback!

I'm not certain if you're aware of the ly/ dir, but if not, you
should definitely look at those.

Cheers,
- Graham