[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Code examples in docs

From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Code examples in docs
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 15:28:54 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

Am 09.04.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Code examples in docs
>> Am 07.04.2016 um 07:54 schrieb Urs Liska:
>>> Am 07.04.2016 um 07:50 schrieb Noeck:
>>>> Hi Urs,
>>>> a very uneducated guess: Could it be that the html pages are only
>>>> generated if the input has changed and as you change the generating
>>>> code
>>>> and not the doc-input, the generation is skipped? It is still strange
>>>> that it works if you empty the file.
>>> Sorry, I had intended to mention that. In order to check exactly this I
>>> introduced an arbitrary change in a snippet (added a comment). Then I
>>> can see the modified snippet, so obviously it *does* get processed.
>>> My suspicion is that there is some completely different file
>>> responsible
>>> for generating the HTML.
>>> Urs
>> Just after sending this message I had another idea and checked for .pyc
>> files.
>> It seems that python/ does *not* have a .pyc file while
>> python/out/ *does*.
>> However, when deleting the .pyc file and rerunning make doc (with the
>> emptied the .pyc was silently (and empty) recreated.
>> However, when *deleting* the .py and .pyc files an error was triggered,
>> when lilypond-book tries to import book_html.
>> Looking further into it I realized:
>> - book_base keeps an array with "formatters"
>> - upon importing any specific book_X it registers an instance of the
>> formatter class in book_base
>> - So if book_html is empty no HTML formatter is registered with
>> lilypond-book
>> This is why there is no error with the empty file.
>> However, this isn't an answer to my question yet. If the HTML formatter
>> is *not* used to produce the HTML included in the doc pages, what else?
>> Any further ideas?
>> Urs
> Just had a quick look at this.  I think I remember that out/*.py is
> created from *.py with make.  Try editing the base source python file
> and then run make and see if it has updated the out/ version.

No, doesn't change anything either. I'm through with all combinatinos of
this. python/, respectively it's alter ego
python/out/ produces code in lilypond-book regtests exclusively.


> -- 
> Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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