On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 08:07:08PM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 12/17/09 5:55 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > > My first thought is that I wish we had somebody dedicated to > > working on the scheme stuff; I'd love to leave this up to a > > trusted person and thereafter ignore the debate. But since that's > > probably not happening within the next 6 months, I guess I'd > > better plunge in. > > Actually, I think that my next project is to put a little bit of work into > Extending LilyPond (EL).
Ok, I hereby dub you El Guy. (that said, it would be nice if we started using the one-word manual names as in the website; that way there'll be absolutely no problems with people not understanding what we're talking about) > I think I know what EL should be. There should be a tutorial similar to the > LM, that teaches how to get started in LilyPond advanced programming, how to ... > The rest of the EL is a collection of tips and tricks, or samples of useful > code. That's fine. > Think LSR or NR for programming. Those are quite different. Is it a reference, or a random collection of tricks? > It's probably more like the LSR > than the NR, because I can't imagine we'd ever be able to create an > exhaustive list of what can be done in Scheme, but I'm picturing sections > for a certain type of work (probably with some snippets from the LSR used to > explain them). I'm liking this part less. Is this be duplicating stuff in the LSR? Would this collection work better directly on the LSR? probably not to the latter point; we don't seem to get enough users contributing to it to be worth the pain. > Have you looked at the patch? I think that what I've written can go in the > NR right where I put it. I still think that if Extending is supposed to start off in a gradual "Learning-style" manual, jumping over simple subsitution function sis a bad idea. I don't like having Extending "depend" on material in Notation. My preference would be for Notation to have an advert pointing at Extending... something like Learning 4.6.6, where they show a rainbow-note example, then say "go loko at Tweaking with scheme". That said, the final decision rests with you, El Guy. (argh, what a painful FAIL with the rainbow example. All those colors are defined, but they didn't use all notes in the scale in the output.) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
