On 10/30/10 3:40 PM, "Marc Hohl" <m...@hohlart.de> wrote: > Am 29.10.2010 11:05, schrieb Neil Puttock: >> On 28 October 2010 23:55, Carl Sorensen<c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: >> >>> Well, as far as I can see, Scheme engravers are really engravers, so they >>> ought to be documented in the IR along with the C++ engravers, not in an >>> appendix of the NR along with Scheme functions. >>> >>> Although the approach you suggest is better than having nothing at all. >>> >> I haven't tested Marc's latest patch yet (and I'm sorry this issue >> didn't cross my mind when I originally suggested using a Scheme >> engraver), but I don't think Valentin's approach is possible without >> also changing the doc infrastructure for C++ engravers: I think you'll >> find \consist-ing a Scheme engraver in engraver-init.ly will cause >> `make doc' to fail. >> > > What is to be done? Is there a clean solution to enable scheme engravers > in engraver-init.ly? > I am not able to rewrite the engraver in c++.
In order to solve this problem for Marc, I'm working on writing an engraver in c++. It's my first engraver using acknowledgers instead of listeners, so it's providing some good learning for me. Marc, I hope this will be helpful for you. I'll post a patch when I get a chance. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
