On Thu 23 Aug 2018 at 21:47:51 (+0200), Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 23 Aug 2018, at 21:12, David Wright <lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Thu 16 Aug 2018 at 22:55:29 (+0200), Hans Åberg wrote: > >>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:35, David Wright <lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> There I would expect -I to be put ahead of the program system > >>>> directories, so those latter can be overridden. I think GCC in the past > >>>> may have had another behavior, and GCC 8 maybe added more options to > >>>> regulate in detail. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure that is how LP is intended to work. I think the idea > >>> would be that you redefine or override the assignments made by those > >>> files if you want to change things and to do that, your files need > >>> to run after LP's rather than preventing their interpretation entirely. > >> > >> GCC works like with PATH, using first occurrence only. So the compiler > >> system files can be overridden that way. > > > > Yes, but the preprocessor can distinguish the system's #include files > > from the user's own ones with <foo> and "foo". > > LilyPond does not have that; I have no preferences whether it should.
I know LP doesn't have that. What I can't discern is whether you *expect* the LP commandline to behave just like a GCC one, or whether you *want* it to. IOW I couldn't understand the sentiment behind your "Normally in compilers, …" about four messages back. > >> LilyPond has system files named like makam.ly, which is natural to use in > >> ones own code. I think that then these are preferred rather than the local > >> ones, which can be confusing. > > > > Exactly. The <LP-installation-path>/ly/*.ly files must be available in > > order for LP to behave as documented. But unlike with C, they pollute > > both the user's library paths *and* the user's source-file paths. > > One might get rid of that by adding <…>, and change "…" to first search the > user directory. It would not affect any old lilypond code, I think, because > if there are name clashes as it is now, the user code cannot be run. > > >>>>> Compounded with the problems caused by -o, there's probably every > >>>>> reason to use an absolute path for the LP input file, particularly > >>>>> in scripts. Perhaps the file handling could be revamped when the > >>>>> major change in relative-includes is made (from #f to #t). > >>>> > >>>> Also -o I would expect to be relative the current directory. Autotools > >>>> would expect that: if one compiles out of the source directory, then the > >>>> generated files should normally end up in the build directory. > >>> > >>> I think -o *is* resolved relative to the current directory if it's a > >>> relative path. The problem is that given, say: > >>> > >>> ~/here $ lilypond -o ../there/ source.ly > >>> > >>> the output looks like: > >>> > >>> GNU LilyPond 2.19.82 > >>> Changing working directory to: `../there' > >>> Processing `source.ly' > >>> Parsing... > >>> /usr/share/lilypond/2.19.82/ly/init.ly:43:1: error: cannot find file: > >>> `source.ly' > >>> > >>> which implies that LP is trying to find here/../there/source.ly instead > >>> of here/source.ly which is what the user intended. LP needs to resolve > >>> all the relative paths on the commandline from $PWD *before* it > >>> changes the value of $PWD itself. > >> > >> With GCC, only one item after -o belong to this option; additional ones > >> are interpreted without the -o. > > > > Sure. LP is the same: you can only write the output to one directory, > > or construct output filenames around one basic string. That wasn't my > > point. The problem is cd-ing to -o's directory *before* resolving the > > paths on the commandline (restating the paragraph above). > > GCC does not change the directory trying to pass it to -o as you wrote above; > just a weird error I think. Again, I don't understand why you bring up GCC. AIUI GCC writes a single file, and -o overrides its default name and location. LP is different. It can write many output files, so since 2.14 -o allows a directory name. But where you want to place the output shouldn't affect the input files at all. But summarising to try to avoid misunderstanding of my opinions, I think that -I affecting the main input source file is a documented, intended misfeature, the -o problem is an undocumented, unintended feature, and the ly/foo.ly nameclash problem is something that might be unavoidable for -I include files (but not the main input file). Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
