Am Sonntag, den 12.05.2013, 21:51 -0400 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > Hello all, > > I'm working on putting together some "house style" stylesheets, and wanted to > see if I had the best structure… > > As one example, I'm tweaking up a Henle piano score stylesheet (e.g. > Beethoven Piano Sonatas Urtext, ca. 1980): > > 1. Lilypond.ily > -- basic settings [that really should be Lilypond defaults!] > > 2. Score.ily > -- \Score context settings [that really should be Lilypond defaults!] > -- \include Lilypond.ily > > 3. PianoStaff.ily > -- \PianoStaff context settings [that really should be Lilypond defaults!] > -- \include Score.ily > > 4. Henle_house.ily > -- settings that are Henle- (but not piano-) specific > > 5. Henle_piano.ily > -- settings that are Henle-piano-specific > -- \include Henle_house.ily and \PianoStaff.ily > > 6. piano_Henle_concert.ily > -- final settings that make it all look like (e.g.) the Beethoven Piano > Sonatas edition > -- \include Henle_piano.ily > > Does that look like the best (i.e., most flexible) structure?
I don't know if it's the _best_ and _most flexible_ structure, but it definitely looks like a _good_ and _flexible_ structure. You can modularely exchange files at any level, and you can include any style with one line in your main .ly file. (Just one question: Why is 6. named as it is?) I'd suggest to go for it. And I think we all would be quite interested in your results ;-) Urs > > Thanks, > Kieren. > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
