[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] ob-lilypond
From: |
Eric Schulte |
Subject: |
Re: [O] ob-lilypond |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:10:32 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Martyn Jago <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi
>
>>
>> If Shelagh hasn't actually authored any of ob-lilypond.el (or at least
>> hasn't authored more than 10 lines of) then we could simply remove her
>> name from the authors list and include it into the Org-mode core. This
>> however may not be the best long-term solution if you anticipate her
>> increased participation later-on in the project. Please let me know
>> (soon) if you would like me to make this change.
>>
>
> I've modified the author status in my repository.
>
Great, I've just moved this into the Org-mode core and added it to the
list of Babel languages.
>
>> Ultimately this points to the more general issue of how to include Babel
>> language-specific tests into the Org-mode test suite s.t. they can be
>> executed independently of the core of the test suite.
>>
>> Thanks -- Eric
>>
>
> My unit-tests don't currently require the Lilypond to be initialised "as a
> babel
> language" nor a Lilypond executable AFAICT, so currently they possibly don't
> need to be run "independently". I'll investigate this further.
>
That's good to hear. Are you up for trying to merge them into the rest
of the Org-mode test suite? This should be as simple as placing any
org-mode example files you have in
org-mode/testing/examples/
placing the .el file defining your tests into
org-mode/testing/lisp/
and renaming all of your tests so that they start with the prefix
"ob-lilypond/"
I fully understand if you don't have the time to do this, and I should
be able to take a shot at it some time in the not-too-distant future.
>
> One distinction that has occurred to me (especially following comments on
> the mailing list) is that of "babel language" and "babel language work-flow".
> In other words, I can visualise refactoring ob-lilypond to be no more than
> a specification of the Lilypond syntax, and working in parallel, on a
> work-flow implementation for Lilypond that is "opinionated" in terms of
> adjusting org-babel settings away from their defaults / removing work-flow
> noise etc. ( org-lilypond.el ) ? Would this make sense, and if so where would
> it live (aligned to org-babel / a native Emacs mode perhaps)?
> I hope that makes sense.
>
That sounds like a good idea. Ideally ob-lilypond should include just
those elements expected by the code block interface, namely functions
for session/external evaluation, for expanding variables in code block
bodies, and for returning results to Org-mode. I think that it would be
a good idea to develop an external org-lilypond to support a more
comprehensive workflow.
Thanks -- Eric
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, (continued)
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Eric Schulte, 2011/06/27
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Martyn Jago, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Bastien, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Bastien, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Eric Schulte, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Bastien, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Eric Schulte, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Martyn Jago, 2011/06/29
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Eric Schulte, 2011/06/29
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Martyn Jago, 2011/06/30
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond,
Eric Schulte <=
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Cameron Horsburgh, 2011/06/28
- Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Martyn Jago, 2011/06/28
Re: [O] ob-lilypond, Christian Moe, 2011/06/28