Am 07.07.2014 11:46, schrieb Urs Liska: >> I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the >> right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up >> with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated >> according to the path they are stored in. >> Should we have a dedicated folder for scheme-modules or shall we store >> them for example in "includes"? >> > > I had thought about this too, but as I don't completely understand > what's going on there I didn't look further so far. > If that's OK with you I'd suggest to handle the scheme-modules only > after the conversion of the snippets. Or does the conversion of some > snippets already depend on that issue? The module naming will change inherently and that will affect some snippets. But that should be easy to identify as I seem to be the only one doing such nasty stuff ;)
> I thought of putting them in /includes/scheme-modules > Does that fit? That's fine. Shall I prepare the scheme stuff? I would propose a root folder like suggested in the include files folder > BTW: I'm not sure about all the lalily stuff. Would you consider merging > that among all the other snippets or should that rather have a dedicated > folder below /library (i.e. beside oll, templates etc.)? I might put snippets originating from lalily - templating, edition-engraver and such - into a folder 'lalily'. In fact, I might reconstruct the whole lalily-complex in that folder and probably make it more convenient to use only parts or the whole workflow. Best, Jan-Peter _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
