Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Mats Bengtsson writes:
Having had a look at the full files, I realize what's up,
Thanks looking into this, Mats, however
namely a missing feature in lilypond-book!
separate include directory for each \lilypondfile{...} or \begin{lilypond}...\end{lilypond} directive.
I object to this feature request. It doesn't seem intuitive (never seen something like this) or necessary: there are several simple ways to tackle this problem. I think it makes a lot of sense that a file name should be unique within a project.
Really? I think it makes sence to do as Will, namely to put the cello part in a file called cello.ly. If you then have one separate directory for each movement, it would just add redundancy to also att the movement number to each file within the directory. Compare to the normal form in database design, that tries to remove such redundancy.
Also, I actually think that you have seen similar approaches in recursive Makefile structures, for example, where the top level makefile has to set some extra paths in order for the included lower level makefiles to work.
Also, it means that the mvmt1/mvmt1.ly file will not work stand-alone
Why is that?
Assume that you have a lilypond-book document in the directory main/ containing \lilypondfile{mvmt1/mvmt1.ly} Then, the file main/mvmt1/mvmt1.ly has to contain include directives of the form \include "mvmt1/piano.ly" in order to work. This means that it will search for main/mvmt1/mvmt1/piano.ly when you run 'lilypond mvmt1.ly' in the directory main/mvmt1/.
I think this is a major difference to program development file structures, where it's uncommon to have one and the same file used both as a standalone top-level file and as an include file in a larger project (maybe with the exception of Makefiles as indicated above).
/Mats
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
