[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:52:11 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>> Actually,  [c16 d e f] is *not* valid lilypond.  The first brace needs to
>> come after the c16:
>> So I don't think there's a problem with the options coming after the
>> {lilypond}.
> Oh right.  Wow.

Took a look at  Did one change and am just now

The change is fairly obvious (hope it works):

diff --git a/scripts/ b/scripts/
index b4bd319..da13ab9 100644
--- a/scripts/
+++ b/scripts/
@@ -467,7 +467,10 @@ snippet_res = {
-          \])?\s*{lilypond}
+          \])?\s*{lilypond}(?(options)|(\s*
+            \[
+             \s*(?P<options>.*?)\s*
+            \])?)
However, I am doing this more or less pattern-based without any
knowledge of the program structure, and _also_ contains

        FILTER: r'''\begin{lilypond}[%(options)s]

which already _has_ the normal LaTeX order for some reason.  So what

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]