Re: Identify included files

[antlists]

On 18/05/2020 15:29, Fr. Samuel Springuel wrote:
> > On 18 May, 2020, at 9:37 AM, antlists <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > define trombone-notes.ly as a target, define it as changed if its dependencies change, 
> > and say "it doesn't exist as a file that can be created with a command".
>
> Right, that’s the step I’m trying to automate.  Make itself cannot determine 
> the list of prerequisites.  You either need to do that manually (a real pain) 
> or provide a tool that can examine a file, determine what its prerequisites are 
> and then write them out in a way that make understands.
>
>  From the manual for GNU Make: 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Automatic-Prerequisites.html#Automatic-Prerequisites
>
> The example there uses the -M flag for a C compiler.  I’m looking to come up 
> with an equivalent for LilyPond.
Okay, does that mean you want a list of all the lilypond include files, 
or just your own?

If you're digging into the internals of lilypond, then it'll be a big 
job, and makes it dangerous to upgrade lilypond. Because I assume that 
means you're actually modifying lilypond's internal structure. What I 
do, anything of lilypond's that I modify, I split it out into my 
directory structure, and then over-ride lilypond's version from within 
my source. That way, what happens to lilypond during an upgrade is no 
concern of mine (other than changes to syntax which mess up my source :-)

If it's just your own files you're concerned about, then grep will 
probably do the trick. I don't know how to recurse directories, but 
making it search all the files in a directory for "include", and tell 
you which file it found that line in, is pretty basic.

You can then read up on make for how to create those virtual objects, 
and use an editor to put them in your makefile. Not totally automated, I 
admit, but fairly simple grunt-work. The sort of thing I could have 
written a BASIC program to do in 10 minutes, except I don't have access 
to a BASIC I understand how to use any more - ironic - as computers have 
got easier to use, so the programming languages have got harder...

Cheers,
Wol