[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] ob-lilypond

From: Eric Schulte
Subject: Re: [O] ob-lilypond
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:10:32 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Martyn Jago <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi
>> If Shelagh hasn't actually authored any of ob-lilypond.el (or at least      
>> hasn't authored more than 10 lines of) then we could simply remove her
>> name from the authors list and include it into the Org-mode core.  This
>> however may not be the best long-term solution if you anticipate her
>> increased participation later-on in the project.  Please let me know
>> (soon) if you would like me to make this change.
> I've modified the author status in my repository.

Great, I've just moved this into the Org-mode core and added it to the
list of Babel languages.

>> Ultimately this points to the more general issue of how to include Babel
>> language-specific tests into the Org-mode test suite s.t. they can be
>> executed independently of the core of the test suite.
>> Thanks -- Eric
> My unit-tests don't currently require the Lilypond to be initialised "as a 
> babel
> language" nor a Lilypond executable AFAICT, so currently they possibly don't
> need to be run "independently". I'll investigate this further. 

That's good to hear.  Are you up for trying to merge them into the rest
of the Org-mode test suite?  This should be as simple as placing any
org-mode example files you have in


placing the .el file defining your tests into


and renaming all of your tests so that they start with the prefix

I fully understand if you don't have the time to do this, and I should
be able to take a shot at it some time in the not-too-distant future.

> One distinction that has occurred to me (especially following comments on 
> the mailing list) is that of "babel language" and "babel language work-flow".
> In other words, I can visualise refactoring ob-lilypond to be no more than
> a specification of the Lilypond syntax, and working in parallel, on a 
> work-flow implementation for Lilypond that is "opinionated" in terms of 
> adjusting org-babel settings away from their defaults / removing work-flow 
> noise etc. ( org-lilypond.el ) ? Would this make sense, and if so where would 
> it live (aligned to org-babel / a native Emacs mode perhaps)? 
> I hope that makes sense.

That sounds like a good idea.  Ideally ob-lilypond should include just
those elements expected by the code block interface, namely functions
for session/external evaluation, for expanding variables in code block
bodies, and for returning results to Org-mode.  I think that it would be
a good idea to develop an external org-lilypond to support a more
comprehensive workflow.

Thanks -- Eric

> Regards
> Martyn

Eric Schulte

reply via email to

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