Re: organizing shared libraries

[Aaron Hill]

On 2024-04-04 6:53 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
> Sort of answering my own question, but I figure that you don't get
> much out of creating scheme modules directly, unless they can live
> entirely outside of the lilypond world. Generally it seems better to
> create shared libraries somewhere and include them with
> `--include/-I`.


If you were doing lots of Scheme programming and wanted to avoid 
polluting the end user's namespace, then modules could make sense.  Mind 
you, if you are the only consumer of your shared library, you probably 
can mitigate naming collisions on your own.

Another case is the backend pattern LilyPond uses, where each backend 
lives in its own module but ultimately exposes the same public 
interface.  This allows abstract driver logic to be wired up dynamically 
with the concrete behavior with minimal coupling and the ability for the 
front-end and back-end to vary independently.


-- Aaron Hill