Re: Export from LilyPond to MusicXML (Thomas Morley)

[David Kastrup]

Jan-Peter Voigt <jp.voigt@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> probably what I am writing now is not new to most of you. About a year
> ago there was a discussion regarding the license of Lilypond, triggered
> by Urs' question about the future of OLL. Again and again the
> documentation was referred to, which says that Lilypond is a compiler
> that translates the source code into a PDF. For God's sake, I don't want
> to discuss the licensing consequences again, but I want to point out
> that this representation is not exactly complete. In fact, each source
> file is translated into a Lilypond internal executable, the execution of
> which then generates the PDF.

Uh, no?  Calling LilyPond's internal representation of music an
"executable" is nonsensical since it does not imply any actions but is a
structural representation of music.  There never is any linear
representation being "executed", and source files are interpreted rather
than compiled, with no file-level representation ever being explicit.

That's not an academic difference since it is a non-trivial question
just what the structure of a MusicXML file is supposed to represent from
a given LilyPond input file.

-- 
David Kastrup