On Friday 17 December 2004 01.08, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > The syntax of basic music input hasn't changed appreciably since > > > lilypond-2.0. For the future, we have plans to build a GNOME-based GUI > > > for tweaking, which completely separates out tweaks into different > > > files. I don't really see what else we can do. > > > > I didn't yet get any response to my ideas about outputting an > > intermediate format.. does this mean it's a bad idea? > > It's a nice idea, but if the "lowlevel" file is going to be edited > automatically, it doesn't make sense to try make it > human-readable. Just use what comes out of input/no-notation/to-xml.ly
There is a point in making it human-readable; namely that it could be made a subset of the .ly language. The point with this would be that as a side-effect, one could create a complete (but lossy in source layout) convert-ly tool, for future compatibility. But, of course, this could be accomplished with xml intermediate format + a complete xml2ly as well. (xml here refers to any non-ly intermediate format) Hm.. subset-of-ly vs xml arguments: - With ly, we would have to use 2 different (independent) parsers for almost the same language. If one changes, both have to change. Could become a bit dirty. - With xml, we would have to maintain a complete xml2ly script, and perhaps a convert-xml for the unusual event of changes in format. Possibly, more documentation will have to be written. - saving back changes to ly is probably harder than to xml. xml looks like a fair choice, as long as we write a tool that can convert it back to equivalent .ly code (i.e. "xml2ly foo.xml | ly2xml -" should be like 'cat foo.xml' if that file was created by lily). Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
