Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: > On 14 Oct 2012, at 10:51, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> >>> On 12 Oct 2012, at 09:01, Graham Percival wrote: >>> >>>> ... After I'm finished my phd, I'll do the thing >>>> which every computer science student should do at least once in >>>> their life: I'll make my own language. I'm not comfortable with >>>> the level of abstractions that lilypond offers. Just like >>>> different programming languages make it easier (or harder) to >>>> write certain types of programs, a different sheet music language >>>> would make it easier to express the type of music that I write. >>>> I'll write a python script which transforms a text file into a .ly >>>> file. >>> >>> One idea is to first Guile style library for Lilypond, and then write >>> a new, more statically typed language on top of that. Have you thought >>> about that? >> >> It would seem that your first sentence has been written in a new >> language already. Perhaps you should explain this in English first for >> the sake of bootstrapping this discussion? > > Just a Lilypond library with a C/C++ header which allows object to be > called directly, as in Guile. This then admits writing a language > calling this.
What would be the input with which to call? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
