Re: Completely separating notation from output logic

[Michael Ellis]

Thanks, Carl.  I probably should have included some background
information.  If I had only one piece of music to worry about, I'd do
it exactly as you suggest.  Problem is I've got 404 Bach Chorales on
the Solfege Resources site and expect to eventually have hundreds or
even thousands more from other composers whose work is public domain.
  Each one has a separate \book { \score {} \score{} } block to
generate pdf + midi files for all parts together plus each part
individually.  There are also some mildly hairy Scheme functions that
invoke the NoteNames engraver and use quoteDuring to add fermatas from
the Soprano part to individual parts.

Having all the output logic in a single include file would:
    1.  Allow me to define a dead-simple format for contributions of
other public domain transcriptions, e.g
          \include "common.ly"
          \head { }
          #(define voices '())
          \appendVoice \voices { ... }  % e.g. Soprano
          \appendVoice \voices { ... )   % e.g. Alto
          ...
          \theOutput  \voices  % all the files for all the voices

    2.  Make it easy to improve who wanted a to change the formatting
by only requiring them to modify the "common.ly"

    3.  Eliminate the need for (or at least greatly simplify) external
scripts to rebuild the world after changes.

I'm not sure how I could do all that by including named files in score files.

Cheers,
Mike



On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> Personally, I think you're going about this exactly backwards.  Rather than
> including the score in a notation file, I think you should include the
> notation in a score file.  That way, you can easily reuse the notation in
> multiple places.