Re: lilyglyphs package - new version and call for participation

[Marc Hohl]

Am 24.09.2012 01:29, schrieb Urs Liska:
> Hi LilyPond coders,
>
> I'm quite happy to tell you that I just finished a new version of my 
> 'lilyglyphs' package. This is not a release, but just a progress from 
> a 0.0.1 version to a 0.0.2, so don't expect anything polished here.
> For those who missed the first announcement a few weeks ago: 
> lilyglyphs is a (Xe-) LaTeX package aiming at providing LilyPond's 
> notational elements as commands for use in continuous text in LaTeX 
> documents.
Hello Urs,

thanks for sharing this! In some of my future projects the lilyglyphs 
package will be quite handy,
but I have not tested it yet, just looked at the code.

> After a first sketch I made a significant step towards a stable syntax 
> and foundation of the package.
> So far it is actually usable already, as you can print any glyphs 
> available in LilyPond's Emmentaler font. The number of predefined 
> commands is still at a neglectable ratio, but you can always access 
> the glyphs through generic commands.
>
> Now I would very much appreciate comments and discussion - and 
> participation!
> There are a few issues that I really need feedback / input with now, 
> as I am in fact quite new to LaTeX, and I would feel much better 
> sorting some things out now before I implement numerous commands.
> When these topics are decided, I could use as many 'helping hands' as 
> possible. The final intention for a version 1.0 is to cover the whole 
> Emmentaler range, which means a lot of individual commands have to be 
> implemented. Of course I will mainly spend energy in areas that I 
> could use myself, so it would be nice to have people who need other 
> kinds of glyphs to participate in their implementation.
>
> At the moment there are two major issues to solve:
> a)
> I implemented a system of optional arguments with key=value lists that 
> can influence the appearance of the glyphs on a global level, at 
> design time (of predefined commands) and at invocation time. It looks 
> quite elegant to me, but I'm not sure if it is robust, extensible and 
> powerful enough.
> b)
> The next issue to tackle is to create symbols (or Grobs) that aren't 
> glyphs but have to be created using glyphs and drawing commands. I did 
> the first test using the tikz/pgf package, but can see very well that 
> it isn't a trivial task. The most obvious issue is to make the 
> resulting graphics scalable without breaking. But on the long run it 
> may be equally important to make this system modular. I don't want to 
> create every new symbol from scratch, but want to be able to reuse 
> elements.
Hmm, I can't really help you with this, but if you want to create 
complex symbols, wouldn't it make sense
to do this in lilypond directly similarly to the way it is done in 
lilypond-book, and import the graphics in
LaTeX?

Regards,

Marc