On 02/12/13 22:20, David Kastrup wrote:
Scheme _is_ its scripting language.
How much scope is there for creating a stable "scripting API" which could be used via Scheme (default) or any arbitrary language of choice, so long as someone writes bindings for that language?
I ask because in our earlier discussion about tweaking, we discussed how large numbers of tweaks render a score effectively tied to a given version of Lilypond. But if there can be a promise, "This scripting API will be future-proof," then maybe that kind of impact can be reduced, and a side benefit would be the potential to script with languages other than Scheme.
Obviously any such API would cover only a subset of the possible tweaks to Lilypond, but that'd be effectively the point, separating tweaking into "safe" and "unsafe" things to mess around with.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
