Re: [openLilyLib] Fundamental reorganization started

[Urs Liska]

Am 10. Februar 2015 05:36:12 MEZ, schrieb Paul Morris <address@hidden>:
>Hi Urs,
>Good to hear about the recent progress on this.  Looks like you have
>put a
>lot of thought and work into it.  

Yes, definitely more than intended ;-)

> Your post was a lot to take in, so
>here
>are just a few thoughts "off the top of my head."  
>
>- What is the plan for existing oll code/content?  Will there be a
>library
>for more "bubbly" code that it would all go into?  Or several
>libraries? 
>Or...?  As you are "raising the bar" on the expectations of quality,
>where
>does sharing more sketchy, experimental, or in-progress work go?

Everything already present should be moved "somewhere", and this process will 
lead to an initial set of libraries. The crucial point here is making the 
creation of a new library a much more deliberate step than the creation of a 
new folder as it was until now.

There should probably one library for uncategorized stuff (e.g. "misc") and one 
for unstable material (e.g. "staging).

>
>- In terms of establishing a consistent way to extend LilyPond, I
>wonder if
>it would make sense to try to leverage scheme modules for this somehow?
> Not
>sure if that would be a good idea, but it seems worth considering. 
>Maybe
>there would be a way to "wrap" their functionality with a more LilyPond
>friendly syntax (sugar)?

There is already "scheme-lib" and "general-tools/scheme-wrappers". This should 
be made more consistent, and I've already exchanged a few thoughts with 
Jan-Peter about it.

>
>- Why "ly" for the top level directory?  There's some potential there
>for
>confusion with the LilyPond source code "ly" directory.  What about
>"oll"
>instead?  Is this directory temporary/transitional or permanent?

It's not carved in stone but I intend it as a permanent solution.
The user won't see that once it is in the include path.  The toplevel 
"namespace" would be the library, e.g.
\loadModule "scholarly/annotate".

My reasoning is that the root directory will eventually have entries like ly, 
py, tex etc. as entry paths.

>
>- I'm still getting used to the idea of the libraries being dependent
>on
>general oll code (for things like setting options, etc.).  Part of me
>would
>like to have them work on their own, although I guess that would still
>be
>possible for that to happen if the library author/maintainer chose to
>do it
>that way.

Technically it's not more than a common directory and include path. So yes, it 
would still be pissible to use openLilyLib as a "distribution channel" for a 
self-contained piece of code.
But I think it is a great advantage to have common code. Apart from the 
infrastructure I already started with there will be more: with all those little 
helper functions one uses to write one can consider moving it to a shared 
utility library. I've started that with the functions parsing a rhythmic 
location originally developed for \annotate.

Thanks fir your input. 

Best 
Urs 
>
>Cheers,
>-Paul
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openLilyLib-Fundamental-reorganization-started-tp171605p171684.html
>Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user