Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 07.11.2014 18:01, schrieb David Kastrup: >> Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: >> >>> Am 07.11.2014 12:31, schrieb David Kastrup: >>>> What we need is to drag the concept of modules into LilyPond, >>> What do you mean by this? >>> Do you suggest to implement a module approach that is somewhat >>> parallel to Scheme's use-module approach? >> No, more likely an approach that is a good wrapper around use-module. > > OK, then I've understood you correctly. > >> >>> Or rather try to "package" a module approach in Scheme modules somehow? >>> My impression is that defining and loading modules should be simpler >>> than defining (and to some extent using) Scheme modules. At least >>> there should be some syntactic sugar so one can use a "\" command to >>> import a library. >> I agree with that. Unless we have additional functionality we need to >> wrap, however, we likely do not need to avoid Scheme for _exporting_ a >> library: the expected minimal skill levels of library providers are >> higher than those of library users. > Yes, sure. > > Do you think this is feasible now or in the foreseeable future? > While willing to invest thought and time in the issue I know that my > Scheme skills are still quite far away from being tremenduously > helpful in such a development.
I think it should be feasible. The main problem is figuring out what to export by default and what not. And markups are really messed up, defining macros, a bunch of functions, properties and stuff. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
