Am 05.12.2013 22:54, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
Hi,
2013/12/5 David Kastrup <[email protected]>:
Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes:
For starters, we could take
https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/templates/predefined-instruments
and expand it, and add such predefined "instruments" to official
LilyPond. I think it would make "structural" work much easier (esp.
for beginners).
We need to figure out how we can provide "style sheets", similar to how
LaTeX makes it possible to define "document classes" (layout definitions
and tools)
As for stylesheets, isn't it just a matter of designing custom \layout
blocks that can be \included into scores? Here's a stub i created:
https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/stylesheets
I also think that the "predefined instruments" stuff i linked to can
be a great help in making such stylesheets effective.
Yes.
You can create style sheets by simple include files with \layout blocks.
That's what everybody does who uses such style sheets.
But the idea is to provide a consistent interface and way to _deploy_
such functionality.
My suggestions would ensure that I can always "use" a stylesheet by its
name without caring for include paths.
From LilyPond's POV it would allow to include such additional material
without requiring it to be in a state that would let it pass the review
stage.
And of course such "packages" (however we'd name it) are much more than
style sheets. They can add arbitrary functionality.
Moving in the direction where this is possible also takes some pressure
of stable/unstable development and features/fixes: something which comes
in its own, optionally used file is not disruptive to the core
stability.
I only hope that this wouldn't become too diverse. One thing i really
dislike about LaTeX is that there are multiple packages doing one
thing, package conflicts etc.
Hm. I think this is why we're discussing these things.
Of course there is such a risk.
But OTOH I think the LilyPond community is considerably smaller than
LaTeX, therefore the number of contributed packages would be
significantly smaller. Then one could maybe direct people to rather
improve existing packages than adding new ones.
Urs
best,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
