Hi Urs, Good to hear about the recent progress on this. Looks like you have put a lot of thought and work into it. Your post was a lot to take in, so here are just a few thoughts "off the top of my head."
- What is the plan for existing oll code/content? Will there be a library for more "bubbly" code that it would all go into? Or several libraries? Or...? As you are "raising the bar" on the expectations of quality, where does sharing more sketchy, experimental, or in-progress work go? - In terms of establishing a consistent way to extend LilyPond, I wonder if it would make sense to try to leverage scheme modules for this somehow? Not sure if that would be a good idea, but it seems worth considering. Maybe there would be a way to "wrap" their functionality with a more LilyPond friendly syntax (sugar)? - Why "ly" for the top level directory? There's some potential there for confusion with the LilyPond source code "ly" directory. What about "oll" instead? Is this directory temporary/transitional or permanent? - I'm still getting used to the idea of the libraries being dependent on general oll code (for things like setting options, etc.). Part of me would like to have them work on their own, although I guess that would still be possible for that to happen if the library author/maintainer chose to do it that way. Cheers, -Paul -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openLilyLib-Fundamental-reorganization-started-tp171605p171684.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
