[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Packages/modules

From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Packages/modules
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:47:13 +0100
User-agent: Evolution 3.34.1-2+b1

Am Dienstag, den 21.01.2020, 11:19 +0100 schrieb Urs Liska:
> > Ok.  One thing to think about is that we want package files to be
> > contributed by "ordinary" users.  But something like
> > 
> > \exportSymbols transposeSequence,instrumentGroup,scratchMyBack
> > 
> > would be perfectly feasible syntactical sugar.
> > 
> I'll be more verbose than probably necessary, just to make sure we're
> talking about the same thing.
> ...
> If I got you right then from my experience with openLilyLib and
> creating project environments (which basically are the same as
> packages), I would say:
>  * I'm all for hiding names in packages by default and having to
>    explicitly expose/export the package's interface

One more implication: If variables and functions have to be explicitly
exported it will be easier for external tools (like Frescobaldi) to add
proper support for extensions.

I assume that at one point Frescobaldi will

 * know about available (core and external) extensions
 * provide ways to "use" an extension (as part of the Score wizard and
 * at that point know about the options that can be passed to that
 * provide autocompletion and highlighting for available symbols
   exported from extensions
 * provide actions to generate the code for getting and setting package

So when planning the syntax of that export it would be good to take the
needs/interest of IDEs into account that will not work with the result
as LilyPond does but that parse the package files themselves.


reply via email to

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