Re: DOCS: include a sample "Makefile"?

[Patrick McCarty]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:42:41PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
> Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>> In message <address@hidden>, John Mandereau  
>> <address@hidden> writes
>>> address@hidden a écrit :
>>>> If you use GNU extensions, then here's the Makefile I generally use,
>>>> to convert everything in the current directory.
>>>>
>>> Your makefile is certainly useful for many pruposes, but it doesn't  
>>> take included files into account:
>>> it will try to build those who have a .ly extension, which may do  
>>> nothing at best (when there is no
>>> \score block or toplevel music expression) or crash at worst (if some 
>>> included files rely on the
>>> fact that some variables are already defined in another file which is 
>>> included in some higher level file);
>>> it will also ignore any dependencies on included files not named *.ly 
>>> or in other directories, which
>>> is a bit annoying for a makefile. Maybe we should recommend naming  
>>> included files with extension
>>> .ily rather than .ly in the LM, e.g. in "Suggestions for writing  
>>> LilyPond files"?
>>
>> My lily files all start with an identifier as to what sort of file they 
>> are. So all of my notes are in a voiceInstrument.ly file. The actual  
>> part definition that produces the pdf is in a partInstrument.ly file. 
>> So I could just use "part*.ly" as my wildcard for the files I actually  
>> wanted make to run on.
>>
>> That's an alternative to creating a new .ily extension, though that is 
>> a good idea - it would make it a lot harder to run lily on a file that  
>> wasn't meant to be done stand-alone :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wol
>
> I use a similar convention to this, Anthony, calling notes files  
> "instrumentNotes.ly", while the score for same is called "instrument.ly"  
> and is stored in a different directory.  I note that Nicolas Sceaux uses  
> .ily extensively.
>
> Does anybody object if I add the .ily extension to the filetype.vim code  
> in AU 2.2.2 "Vim mode"?  And besides that, to the actual filetype.vim  
> file in the sources? I always have to add *.ily manually to my  
> filetype.vim file to get proper highlighting.

That's a great idea.  I always end up doing this manually, and I never
thought of adding it to the official sources.


Thanks,
-Patrick