On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 08:17:38PM +0200, Mike Solomon wrote: > True that.
Please do not top-post. > My three.5 concerns are: > 1) said code cannot use non-public scheme functions (am I right in thinking > that?). I'm not certain about this. > 2) changes to init.ly are not copied from one version of lilypond to the > next, nor are one person's "modules". I do my compiling from the git > repository, so I could likely rig something like that for my own machine, > but I imagine this is even more problematic for someone downloading a > GUB-made lilypond. I had this problem with my site-packages when I updated > from Python 2.4 to 2.6, and it took me days to get back things as I had > them. It would not be hard to add functionality to let people put their own "modules" in ~/.lilypond/ or whatever. In fact, Reinhold's recent patch for --user-include already supplies this functionality, although we might want to provide syntactic sugar by adding a --module-dir option. The "relative include paths" feature, which may or may not be in the docs yet, also helps with this task. > 3) There should be some sorta standard practice (ie template) for how > modules are written (I believe that's what David was referring to). I don't think that this is what David was talking about, but of course such templates would be useful. And, by the way, I've been trying to recruit somebody to organize /ly/ for at least the past three years. > 3.5) I stand by my assertion that certain features of lilypond should be > turned into modules if lilypond is to grow to be as encompassing as > something like j-edit or emacs. As a general rule? Sure. Look, you're mixing up a few issues. 1. what are the technical limits of the functionality which can be added as the result of an \include "foo.ly" statement? (loading libraries, defining non-public scheme functions, redefining syntax, changing font heads...) AFAIK, we don't have a clearly known+documented set of limits. This would be useful to work on. 2. how should the dirs be organized? This is an idea from 3 or 4 years ago. Nothing is going to happen until 2.14 is out. And there's no point trying to seriously discuss this until #1 is settled. 3. how can we make this easy for users? No point discussing this until #1 is settled. If people think that I'm not being very encouraging, I'd like to remind them that we currently have 15 patches waiting for review or revision, including 2 for Critical issues, and that we (as a community of developers) are being terribly unsupportive in not spending more effort helping those patches get finished. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
