Re: Some wild considerations and a question

[Thomas Morley]

About issue 34

Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Jacques Menu <imj-muzhic@bluewin.ch>:

> LilyPond can be characterized the following way, please excuse any important 
> omission or error:

>         - the implementation is one-pass, meaning that the work done when 
> handling a file goes straight from the characters level to graphics and MIDI 
> output, without any intermediate stop;


> Some aspects of the current state of the Lily implementation are a bit 
> saddening:
>         -  solving the famous #34 issue is nearly impossible in the current 
> one-pass setup.
>
> There have been very interesting discussions about all this at the Salzburg 
> conference last January, which lead me to dream of things being done another 
> way in an ideal world:
>         - go for a multi-pass implementation, in which an internal 
> representation of the score is built in memory in a first move. Then other 
> moves produce graphics and MIDI output from this representation, which could 
> also be used to convert LilyPond to MusicXML or other formats;

> Multi-pass would help solve the #34 issue: a representation of the whole 
> score in memory can be used to spot the places where one has to add grace 
> skips as of today, before executing the graphics creation pass(es). This is 
> the way xml2ly adds such skips automatically to avoid the issue in the 
> LilyPond code it generates.

I can't fully imagine the advantages of a multi-pass implementation.
Nevertheless, what you wrote sounds not like _solving_ issue 34 but to
have a better workflow for the recommended workaround.

Maybe
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/34/?page=1&limit=25#2eca
points to an automatic implementation of a work around, if further developed...

Cheers,
  Harm