[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:39:30 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Paul Morris <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Amy,
>
>> I'm sorry I'm such a dunce, but with the amount of documentation
>> supplied, make-engraver is extremely hard to grasp.
>
> I’d say you’re doing pretty well.
Quite better than par for the course I'd say. But then it takes some
tenacity to be playing golf in a mine field.
> As I understand it David Kastrup is working towards better integration
> of scheme engravers into LilyPond, granting them “full citizenship”.
> Once that is finished maybe we can work to improve the documentation.
That's not actually related. I'm working (still issue 1375) on being
able to _register_ Scheme engravers properly so that you can call on
them using \consists "Name_of_engraver" and have predefined Scheme
engravers be documented like their C++ counterparts in the LilyPond
Internals manual. But while it makes it more feasible to change some
engraver implementations to a Scheme implementation, it does not
actually help one bit with writing a Scheme engraver from scratch (apart
from lowering the barriers for LilyPond developers to convert some C++
engravers into Scheme, thus making it more likely that you'll eventually
be able to find more example code to dig up inside of LilyPond).
Apart from the registration/reflection bit, the only thing that might
warrant improvement is how to allocate/create/manage per-instance
storage for Scheme engravers. The current solution of using closures
for that is awkward. But most of the awkwardness is in setting it up:
the actual code working with per-instance data would not look
significantly different with a more native scheme.
So basically issue 1375 is in no way related to improving the
documentation about Scheme engravers. It's just about letting them
blend in a bit better with C++ engravers.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, (continued)
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Amelie Zapf, 2015/06/15
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Amelie Zapf, 2015/06/15
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Paul Morris, 2015/06/15
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Kastrup, 2015/06/15
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Amelie Zapf, 2015/06/17
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Amelie Zapf, 2015/06/17
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Nalesnik, 2015/06/17
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Nalesnik, 2015/06/17
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Amelie Zapf, 2015/06/17
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Paul Morris, 2015/06/18
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Paul Morris, 2015/06/19
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Kastrup, 2015/06/15
Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Thomas Morley, 2015/06/18
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Kastrup, 2015/06/18
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Thomas Morley, 2015/06/18
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Kastrup, 2015/06/19
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Thomas Morley, 2015/06/19
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, David Kastrup, 2015/06/19
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Thomas Morley, 2015/06/19
- Re: Nashville notation as chord symbols, Amelie Zapf, 2015/06/21