On 14 Oct 2012, at 13:25, David Kastrup wrote: > 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?
I'm not sure what you have in mind here. I made this with Guile, making an infix language on top of it. When the new language program starts, it calls init_guile() and reads an input, constructing a Guile expression through calls to the Guile header objects, after which it is evaluated using scm_primitive_eval(). Hans _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel