Jacques Peron <catac...@hotmail.com> writes: > > As far as I can tell the cleanest (and easiest) way would be to >> publish the package on CTAN so it will be included in TeX distros like >> TeXLive (like it is the case with lilyglyphs). > > I'd be really glad to do so, but I don't know how to... And if I remember > what I read about the integration of Gregorio, calling external programs > from "official" packages obeys quite difficult rules. > > *Then* of course it >> should be mentioned in the LilyPond docs too. > > It's already mentioned here : > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/luatex > > > I fail to see why it uses different syntax for embedding LilyPond code > than lilypond-book does, though. Why not make it compatible by just > adding the right \usepackage invocation? > > The only thing I don't know how to do is to have the same name (lilypond) > for thé command and for the environment. So I privileged the > environment.
Neither are called lilypond. It's not particularly great, but there are examples for the sharing of command and environment. Basically you check whether @currenvir is set to LilyPond. As long as you don't _nest_ those constructs... Basically: \newenvironment{lilypond} {...} {...} \newcommand{\lilypondcommand}{...} \let\lilypond@envcode\lilypond \protected\def\lilypond{\def\reserved@a{lilypond}% \ifx\reserved@a\@currenv \expandafter\lilypond@envcode \else \expandafter \lilypondcommand \fi} Ugly, sure. But I think LilyPond upstream would be sympathetic to making command and environment named differently in the long run. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user