Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>
> Please do *not* use Mudela as the format for your editor. The
> lilypond parsing front end is about 4000 lines of code, and it is
> complicated. (not counting identifier stuff, the data structures that
> have to be read. If I would it would probably 6 or 7000 lines). To
> try reading mudela would imply writing a second parser for mudela, a
> complete waste of time, if you ask me.
I agree that you won't want to parse general mudela, but I do think that
using mudela as your file format would be best. It seems to me that
Denemo is likely to serve pretty much as a `voice editor', meaning it
will be used to edit the notes in one voice at a time. I think it would
be nice to have it look in a mudela for special comments indicating that
there is a voice to be edited, and then Denemo would only actually parse
that voice, or rather those voices that are so marked.
This would have several advantages:
1) You don't need the 4000 lines of code to parse general mudela, you
just need to be able to parse the notes and rests and any other markings
you want to support.
2) Denemo will be able to work with arbitrarily complex mudela
documents, since it doesn't know or care whether I am putting the voices
on the same staff or on several staves.
3) For newbies (to lily) you could have a set of templates for, say,
piano music, chorals or whatever.
It seems to me that this would make Denemo relatively simple to
implement and use, and yet allow it to still be a powerful tool for
advanced mudela users who just have trouble reading 'a c b d a' and
seeing music, but still want all the wonderful features that lilypond
has.
Just my $.02
--
David Roundy
http://civet.berkeley.edu/droundy/
