Martyn Jago <martyn.j...@btinternet.com> writes: > Hi > >> >> If Shelagh hasn't actually authored any of ob-lilypond.el (or at least >> hasn't authored more than 10 lines of) then we could simply remove her >> name from the authors list and include it into the Org-mode core. This >> however may not be the best long-term solution if you anticipate her >> increased participation later-on in the project. Please let me know >> (soon) if you would like me to make this change. >> > > I've modified the author status in my repository. >
Great, I've just moved this into the Org-mode core and added it to the list of Babel languages. > >> Ultimately this points to the more general issue of how to include Babel >> language-specific tests into the Org-mode test suite s.t. they can be >> executed independently of the core of the test suite. >> >> Thanks -- Eric >> > > My unit-tests don't currently require the Lilypond to be initialised "as a > babel > language" nor a Lilypond executable AFAICT, so currently they possibly don't > need to be run "independently". I'll investigate this further. > That's good to hear. Are you up for trying to merge them into the rest of the Org-mode test suite? This should be as simple as placing any org-mode example files you have in org-mode/testing/examples/ placing the .el file defining your tests into org-mode/testing/lisp/ and renaming all of your tests so that they start with the prefix "ob-lilypond/" I fully understand if you don't have the time to do this, and I should be able to take a shot at it some time in the not-too-distant future. > > One distinction that has occurred to me (especially following comments on > the mailing list) is that of "babel language" and "babel language work-flow". > In other words, I can visualise refactoring ob-lilypond to be no more than > a specification of the Lilypond syntax, and working in parallel, on a > work-flow implementation for Lilypond that is "opinionated" in terms of > adjusting org-babel settings away from their defaults / removing work-flow > noise etc. ( org-lilypond.el ) ? Would this make sense, and if so where would > it live (aligned to org-babel / a native Emacs mode perhaps)? > I hope that makes sense. > That sounds like a good idea. Ideally ob-lilypond should include just those elements expected by the code block interface, namely functions for session/external evaluation, for expanding variables in code block bodies, and for returning results to Org-mode. I think that it would be a good idea to develop an external org-lilypond to support a more comprehensive workflow. Thanks -- Eric > > Regards > > Martyn > > > > > > -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
