Mark Polesky wrote:
To me, as a newbie looking at the Scheme code, I think these are kludges
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> No. In the specific case, I'd recommend making another music
>> function that takes an argument, so you can pass the 15/16
>> explicitly, without mucking with variables.
> So it sounds like you believe that one way or another, the burden
> should be on the user. Then do you think we should add a warning
> in the docs, something like this?
> "When the value of such a variable is changed in a .ly file, the
> change is global, and unless explicitly reverted, the new value
> will persist to the end of the file, affecting subsequent \score
> blocks as well as external files added with the \include command.
> This can lead to unintended consequences (if a variable is not
> explicitly reverted). Especially in complex typesetting projects,
> these types of errors can be difficult to track down."
> Would this be something to add to LM 5.2.2 "Common errors"?
> I suppose we could also explain (in the docs) how to devise (in
> general) a custom music-function with the extra argument as youidea
> described, but this is a little trickier than simply pointing
> users to NR 6.1.3 "Paired substitution functions". Rewriting the
> music-function involves not only finding the location of its
> definition in the distribution files, but also manipulating the
> scheme code -- far more advanced than explicitly reverting the
> value, but much safer.
> What do you think?
and therefore suck.
If you are going to write document the restriction as a "Common Error"
and in LM 5.2.2 there should be big TODO comments in the code and a
tracker to say that some (or all) of these variables need to be scoped
by \score blocks, as Mark suggested.
See comments below for further info.
<** Graham and Trevor alert**>
> By the way, the number of "parser variables" susceptible to this
> situation may be quite small. I grepped "(ly:parser-lookup" and
> found these 12 variables:
> Of these 12, 5 were involved in examples (in the docs) showing how
> to modify the value from a .ly file:
> #(define afterGraceFraction (cons 15 16))
> #(set! output-count 1)
> #(define output-suffix "violin")
> showFirstLength = R1*1
> showLastLength = R1*5
At the very least, these need documenting in the CG, along with some
comments on what they are for.
I was able to work out output-count and output-suffix from the code in
print-book-with, but I wouldn't have a clue where to look for where they
are defined/where they are used in the code beyond what Mark has
Any offers to lighten the Frogs' darkness?
</** Graham and Trevor alert**>
OK, here's the reason I feel strongly on this:
I've been looking at the low-level trackers regarding output filenames.
In the lilypond code we assume that there is only one output filename of
each type which is produced when compiling a lilypond source (and the
files it \includes).
Each lilypond source file has to have at least one \source block, and if
the user doesn't code it, the compiler assumes an implicit one during
The compiler assumes that the filename part of the source file, or if
specified, the --output argument value is what we use for producing the
set of files for the \score block. So foobar.ly produces foobar.pdf (or
foobar.svg or foobar.png) and maybe foobar.mid/foobar.midi.
However there's a real problem that opens up once we allow more than one
\score block in each source file: while the graphical back-ends (pdf,
svg, png} etc. append the output for each \score to the original, the
\midi block produces a separate file, which is the reason for the
output-count and output-suffix parser variables. This is so the
print-book-with Scheme function in lily-library.scm can play around with
them and add a sequential number to to each filename for the midi files
I think the sequence number idea using parser variables was a
rough-and-ready solution to prevent successive \midi blocks within a
\score from over-writing the midi block from a previous \score.
However the assumption that
parser-variables-only-apply-to-things-at-outermost-score-level was left
I've been trying to look at this problem but to allow either a property
within the \midi block or a function to allow users to specify a
specific filename for that \score section or specify the output-suffix
for that section, and before I went on holiday was that print-book-with
function was only called once per compilation, so it seemed I was up
against a brick wall without guidance from a grown-up developer, and I
believed properties attached to \score within a \bookpart were
inheritable and scoped, and Han-Wen appears to be saying they're not.
I think they need to be, hence why I agree with Mark's original proposal.
I reckon output-suffix (at least) needs to be a \score property that is
saved at the beginning of processing a \score block, and restored at the
end of the expression governed by the \score. Potentially maybe some of
the others need this but I can't comment without knowing what they do.
Sorry if this looks like a top-posting, but the overall issue Mark
raised here has shed light on something I've been struggling with, and
maybe has exposed a design assumption that wasn't clear beyond the
original lilypond developers.
Join the Frogs!
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|