Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Export to pure Scheme file #47

Open
uliska opened this issue Nov 8, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

Export to pure Scheme file #47

uliska opened this issue Nov 8, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@uliska
Copy link
Contributor

uliska commented Nov 8, 2016

This issue is copied over from openlilylib/snippets#138.

This is a result from discussions in the threads
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00186.html
(and maybe also
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00187.html).

It is necessary to add raw Scheme as an export target for annotate. This file can later be read in again and used for creating a critical report within LilyPond.
It's not clear yet whether this will be accessible in the same score, in a subsequent score, in a new bookpart or only in a separate compilation.

@jefferyshivers
Copy link
Member

I'm interested in looking into this once the first release of the latex package is behind me.

I suspect, to process the score's annotations (which may include in-score footnotes and bottom-of-the-page footnotes, in additions to the endnotes), there might need to be some kind of multiple-pass approach (I'm not too familiar with the order in which things are engraved / processed by LP).

If Guile/LP can't/doesn't write files synchronously, we can probably tell LP to print-to-score the footnotes/annotations based on the current list as it is being processed along the way, but just as well export to a file that same list in the exact same format at the end of the process. Then the list/file can be referenced/used separately, but not necessarily depended-on by LP at the time of engraving (if told, by some option, to indeed engrave those annotations to the score).

Does that make sense / sound like I'm on the right track?

@uliska
Copy link
Contributor Author

uliska commented Mar 3, 2017

I'm not sure as I would have to get into the topic quite deeply, but i have the impression it makes sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants