Re: Auto-generated code, (was Re: Reasons why a LilyPond-to-MEI conversion should be developed)

[Richard Shann]

On Sat, 2015-10-24 at 23:12 +0200, Noeck wrote:
> Dear Richard,
> 
> first I want to emphasize that this was not against you or Denemo, just
> a connection between my favoured workflows and the tools I use.

I quite understand/understood. Actually, I see that this was on
lilypond-devel not lilypond-user and my main motivation was that
interested people on lilypond-user might get a wrong idea.
FWIW:
> 
> I don't understand 'traverse the staffs' in your sentence:

So Denemo organizes the music into movements and staffs and basically
has all the commands that you could execute by typing available to the
Scheme interface, so you can programatically go to (-> move the cursor
to) the top staff, go to the beginning, go to the next object and get
the LilyPond syntax for that object and then output it (or some variant
of it) to your output file. An example: Denemo does not generate
\relative music, but you could create such output by interrogating the
current chord and keeping track of the previous one.

> 
> > It *does* provide a
> > default LilyPond output, but you can just as easily traverse the staffs
> > you have entered generating the output you would prefer
> 
> If I used Denemo and I wanted to do tweaks in lilypond code, I would
> have to work within auto-generated ly code, wouldn't I?

you can place arbitrary LilyPond syntax in and around notes. Your output
routine would have no problem to emit that.
But, yes, ultimately it would get more difficult to use it to create an
informative display - a crude typeset - if you wanted to use certain
forms (the  {music // music} for instance, if I have the syntax right!
). 

Richard


> 
> Best,
> Joram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel