Re: Extending LilyPond with packages

[Urs Liska]

Am 05.12.2013 22:54, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/12/5 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> > Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
> > > For starters, we could take
> > > https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/templates/predefined-instruments
> > > and expand it, and add such predefined "instruments" to official
> > > LilyPond.  I think it would make "structural" work much easier (esp.
> > > for beginners).
> > We need to figure out how we can provide "style sheets", similar to how
> > LaTeX makes it possible to define "document classes" (layout definitions
> > and tools)
> As for stylesheets, isn't it just a matter of designing custom \layout
> blocks that can be \included into scores?  Here's a stub i created:
> https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/stylesheets
>
> I also think that the "predefined instruments" stuff i linked to can
> be a great help in making such stylesheets effective.

Yes.
You can create style sheets by simple include files with \layout blocks.
That's what everybody does who uses such style sheets.

But the idea is to provide a consistent interface and way to _deploy_ 
such functionality.
My suggestions would ensure that I can always "use" a stylesheet by its 
name without caring for include paths.
From LilyPond's POV it would allow to include such additional material 
without requiring it to be in a state that would let it pass the review 
stage.
And of course such "packages" (however we'd name it) are much more than 
style sheets. They can add arbitrary functionality.

> > Moving in the direction where this is possible also takes some pressure
> > of stable/unstable development and features/fixes: something which comes
> > in its own, optionally used file is not disruptive to the core
> > stability.
> I only hope that this wouldn't become too diverse.  One thing i really
> dislike about LaTeX is that there are multiple packages doing one
> thing, package conflicts etc.

Hm. I think this is why we're discussing these things.
Of course there is such a risk.
But OTOH I think the LilyPond community is considerably smaller than 
LaTeX, therefore the number of contributed packages would be 
significantly smaller. Then one could maybe direct people to rather 
improve existing packages than adding new ones.

Urs

> best,
> Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user