Re: [openlilylib] Discuss restructuring

[Urs Liska]

Am 03.07.2014 17:51, schrieb Noeck:
> Hi,
>
> I like your ideas on the wiki.
>
> - I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
> definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
> However, it means that the content of the library doubles (one folder
> and one ily).
> I am not sure, if it is a good idea, but the readme and the examples do
> not need to be includable and internal files should then go to
> helper-files (as far as I understand), so: how about only .ily files in
> the include-path and the rest elsewhere?
>
> - I had problems distinguishing these categories:
>      - general-tools
>      - input-shorthands
>      - notation-snippets
>      - specific-solutions
>
> While I could understand some of those from their content (or the
> description), I found it hard to draw the line between them in each case.
> What you propose now (layout, tweaks, text, lyrics, notation) is more
> intuitive for me. I see some border-cases/issues:
>    - Is notation only for music? A function for lyrics or text would go
>      in their categories?

Should be discussed. I'm not sure about that yet.

>    - I don't see yet what would go into »specific instruments/repertoire«

For example shortcuts for staff changes in piano music.
Snippets for specific bending techniques for guitar.
Lute tablature.

Notation issues specific to specific historic styles (15. century, 
contemporary ...)

>    - Where would the music-fonts go?
>      (I would suggest the custom- because anything here is custom)

Ah, forgot that, they should have their own folder just like now.

>    - What is period?

(historic style. Seems redundant, sorry)

>    - Btw, I always found the »markup« annoying, because it is such a
>      technical term. »text« would be more straightforward, even if it is
>      extended with markup commands.

If we should decide to throw text and lyrics into one main category I'd 
agree with that.. Otherwise I think we should find a way to 
differenciate between them.

> - Why is a 2nd »meta« folder inside library?

OK, this should be improved.
The top-level "meta" folder (as it's currently) contains meta stuff 
about the project, such as snippets templates, some images and 
contributor information.
Maybe this should be dropped and all of its content moved to the Wiki.
The "meta" folder _inside_ the library is meant for stuff that isn't 
really related to the actual engraving. I'd see snippets in there like 
the ones that are currently in "general-tools"

> - +1 for the lowercase-dash-naming
> - Will openlilylib and snippets be the same? Does openlilylib contain
> all the LilyPond resources or only the the includable part and the meta
> folders etc. I am a bit confused about the naming. lilylib is outdated,
> right?

OK, sorry for causing confusion.

lilylib is outdated (and has been for some time already).

Currently we have an "organization" https://github.com/openlilylib
One of the repos of the organization is
https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib

This contains all the resources, has the issue tracker and a Wiki.
_Inside_ this should be (as per my suggestion) a directory "library" 
which is the root of the includable files. This is also the directory 
that should be made available to Lilypond's include path.

> - I would like to remind the idea of a preview-image-overview over the
>    library.

See my comment to Paul's message.

> Those are just my comments.

Thanks
Urs

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