Am 10.11.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Graham
King:
...
long snip ...
I confess I'm a bit daunted by the LaTeX learning curve, and it is
possible that I'm not uniquely inadequate in that respect. So a
Lilypond-only solution would be ideal for me, and would save
others the prospect of learning yet-another-language.
OK, on the long run I will want to have both, but actually it
doesn't matter where to start ...
I'm brainstorming a bit here, but if, for example,
ScholarLy could make its annotations available as a Scheme array
for metadata and markup, the lilypond user could access that array
in a \markup block after the end of the music. Layout could then
be left to the user, selecting just the desired elements of data.
The array might look something like:
(((author . "A.N.Other")
(bar . 2)
(beat . 1)
(text . "\markup { \note #"4" #1 } added")
...)
((author . "F.Bloggs")
(bar . 5)
...)
...))
I haven't looked in the code right now, but I'm pretty sure there
*is* such a Scheme tree structure at some point. The question is if
that is available at the moment we'd need it.
While parsing the input annotations are built and added to an array,
and when parsing is finished they are processed, i.e. sorted,
(optionally) filtered and exported. I'm not sure if a reasonable
representation is already available when regular markup is used and
interpreted.
One thing should definitely be possible: Writing that structure out
to a temporary file and read that in at a later moment. Maybe this
would allow to use the data only in another bookpart? But that's
something to be discussed with those people who know more about the
process of collecting elements of a book.
With regard to layout I think at least a basic implementation should
be available with commands like
\criticalreport
(to print out a full default report)
\criticalRemark
(to print a single remark)
etc.
We would then have to discuss whether it's better (or feasible) to
make that stuff configurable or if we should simply leave it to the
end user to take them as a model for her own solutions.
Best
Urs
I haven't looked in detail yet but, with luck, there will be a
good correspondence between the lilyglyphs used in Latex and the
notation elements available to \markup (Notation Reference,
section 1.8.2)
Maybe some default layout could be added later, for those dismayed
equally by LaTeX and Scheme...
I think 2) and 4) are principally equally appropriate, but to
choose one out of them we'd need a better idea of the concrete
project (but I can't ask specific questions about that).
Both approaches would require additional development, either the
LaTeX code to handle the critical report or the same for
LilyPond.
I assume that making LaTeX do what you want is the lower hanging
fruit. And if development of a proper (i.e. generic) LaTeX
package turns out to be complicated or takes too long it will
always be possible to create a project-specific solution without
serious problems. With the LilyPond-only approach I wouldn't
make a guarantee yet if it's really achievable, although I
assume so.
On the other hand this will add a second tool and thus an
additional layer of complexity that may not be needed if you
could achieve your goal directly from within a LilyPond score.
Then again, getting familiar with LaTeX may be a good investment
anyway.
Regarding some abstract "public interest" I'd say 2) and 4) are
similarly important and equally missing.
HTH
Urs
[1] From the Snippets Repository: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=368
[2] http://lilypondblog.org/2015/01/introducing-scholarly/
[3] lilypond-user list, November 2015: "ScholarLy and
polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)"
[4] http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/lilypond_002dbook
[5] http://lilypondblog.org/2013/07/creating-songbooks-with-lilypond-and-latex/
[6] http://openlilylib.org/musicexamples/index.html
|