Re: Scheme performers/translators

[David Kastrup]

Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> writes:

> On 2021-09-29 12:39 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The question is whether we should do something like this as default,
>> possibly conditioned on whether any acknowledgers are present?  Because
>> even if we cannot react to Midi data structures (since they are not
>> Scheme-accessible for now), sometimes a translator may be enough to do
>> the trick.
>
> You say "for now" above, so is allowing Scheme to interact directly
> with the MIDI stream something that is planned?

I have no idea what you call "planned".  It is a deficiency that one
cannot use LilyPond in anything but a hardwired manner for creating
Midi.  That does not mean that I know this to be in anybody's personal
work queue.  At the current point of time, the Midi data structures are
not even in the Scheme memory management.  I think most of them just
stick around without ever getting deleted.

> Between what you have just shown and the work that already occurs in
> articulate.ly, it seems a lot of practical manipulation is possible
> without going down to the MIDI layer.  So, your little patch to enable
> wider use of Scheme translators seems quite useful.  At the very
> least, the more folks build on this and start playing around with the
> music, the more we would understand what a potential full Scheme
> performer support would entail.

Well, this is not as much supporting the MIDI layer as it is employing
the translator level for messing with music during iteration.  It's sort
of annoying that it doesn't work by default.

-- 
David Kastrup