Re: lilypondbook package useful?

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> But do I see correctly that I can't compile my original file with
> latex anymore (because of the undefined environment/command)?
> I find this inacceptable, because I want to be able to compile my
> original document at any time during its development.
>
> If I didn't miss something, I will try to use the following
> workaround:
>
> * Write a .sty file containing latex definitions corresponding to the
>   command recognized by lilypond-book. 
>
> * When latex compiles the file it will then print the source code and
>   a comment instead

It would be feasible to actually cause LilyPond processing.

> Attached you'll find a first sketch for the 'lilypond' environment
> (.sty file, test .tex file and pdf).
>
> Am I on the right track with this approach?
> Or is there something wrong with it?

Well, what will always be wrong with it is that without using
LilyPond-book, you can only use embedded LilyPond in situations where
\verb and the verbatim environment would work.  This rules out, for
example, usage in macro arguments, the most important of those probably
being the default \footnote command.

-- 
David Kastrup