Re: Lily version operators documentation
On 02/15/2017 07:19 AM, Urs Liska wrote: Yes, these are the functions created by LY_DEFINE in C++ files. If I recall correctly there was discussion about auto-documenting "real" Scheme functions too, but I don't know where this went ... David Nalesnik wrote a script for this. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-04/msg00134.html -Paul ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
Urs Liska writes: > Am 15. Februar 2017 13:03:55 MEZ schrieb Trevor Daniels : >> >>Urs Liska wrote Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:04 AM >> >>> Am 14.02.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Trevor Daniels: >>> As these functions are not intended for the usual LilyPond user I don't think the NR is suitable, other than to have them listed in >>A22. Similarly, they will also be listed in the IR under Scheme >>functions. >>> >>> Are they listed there really? >>> I was of the impression that the ly:something functions defined in >>> Scheme are *not* documented anywhere. >> >>You're right. I was misled by the title of A.22 - "Scheme functions". >>Having explored how this is generated it seems these are actually >>scheme-callable functions written in C++, if I understand it correctly. > > Yes, these are the functions created by LY_DEFINE in C++ files. > > If I recall correctly there was discussion about auto-documenting > "real" Scheme functions too, but I don't know where this went ... Maybe we should look for some indicator in the doc string? I think that a number of Scheme function doc strings are just not suitable for running through Texinfo. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
Am 15. Februar 2017 13:03:55 MEZ schrieb Trevor Daniels : > >Urs Liska wrote Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:04 AM > >> Am 14.02.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Trevor Daniels: >> >>> As these functions are not intended for the usual LilyPond user I >>> don't think the NR is suitable, other than to have them listed in >A22. >>> Similarly, they will also be listed in the IR under Scheme >functions. >> >> Are they listed there really? >> I was of the impression that the ly:something functions defined in >> Scheme are *not* documented anywhere. > >You're right. I was misled by the title of A.22 - "Scheme functions". >Having explored how this is generated it seems these are actually >scheme-callable functions written in C++, if I understand it correctly. Yes, these are the functions created by LY_DEFINE in C++ files. If I recall correctly there was discussion about auto-documenting "real" Scheme functions too, but I don't know where this went ... Urs > >Trevor -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
Urs Liska wrote Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:04 AM > Am 14.02.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Trevor Daniels: > >> As these functions are not intended for the usual LilyPond user I >> don't think the NR is suitable, other than to have them listed in A22. >> Similarly, they will also be listed in the IR under Scheme functions. > > Are they listed there really? > I was of the impression that the ly:something functions defined in > Scheme are *not* documented anywhere. You're right. I was misled by the title of A.22 - "Scheme functions". Having explored how this is generated it seems these are actually scheme-callable functions written in C++, if I understand it correctly. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
Urs Liska writes: > Am 14.02.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Trevor Daniels: >> Urs Liska wrote Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:23 AM >> >>> my patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5067/ >>> http://codereview.appspot.com/317270043 is currently on countdown. It >>> introduces the procedures >>> >>> - lilypond>? >>> - lilypond>=? >>> - lilypond>> - lilypond<=? >>> - lilypond=? >>> >>> comparing a given version to the one currently compiling the document. >>> This makes it possible to write library code supporting multiple >>> LilyPond versions across syntax changes. >>> >>> My question is: Where can I add documentation for this? Browsing through >>> Extending and IR doesn't seem to indicate a suitable place. It *might* >>> be fitting somewhere in the "General input and output" of the NR, but >>> I'm way from being sure about that either. >> As these functions are not intended for the usual LilyPond user I >> don't think the NR is suitable, other than to have them listed in A22. >> Similarly, they will also be listed in the IR under Scheme functions. > > Are they listed there really? > I was of the impression that the ly:something functions defined in > Scheme are *not* documented anywhere. That's the current state, yes. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
Am 14.02.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Trevor Daniels: > Urs Liska wrote Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:23 AM > >> my patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5067/ >> http://codereview.appspot.com/317270043 is currently on countdown. It >> introduces the procedures >> >> - lilypond>? >> - lilypond>=? >> - lilypond> - lilypond<=? >> - lilypond=? >> >> comparing a given version to the one currently compiling the document. >> This makes it possible to write library code supporting multiple >> LilyPond versions across syntax changes. >> >> My question is: Where can I add documentation for this? Browsing through >> Extending and IR doesn't seem to indicate a suitable place. It *might* >> be fitting somewhere in the "General input and output" of the NR, but >> I'm way from being sure about that either. > As these functions are not intended for the usual LilyPond user I > don't think the NR is suitable, other than to have them listed in A22. > Similarly, they will also be listed in the IR under Scheme functions. Are they listed there really? I was of the impression that the ly:something functions defined in Scheme are *not* documented anywhere. > > Perhaps the best place to add a description is in Section 2 of the > Usage Manual where convert-ly is discussed? A new subsection > 2.2 Testing the version (displacing the existing sections down 1) > could be added. But I concede mixing with convert-ly is hardly ideal. This may be the best bet so far. But I'd then suggest to *add* a section after all the others. Urs > > Trevor -- u...@openlilylib.org https://openlilylib.org http://lilypondblog.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
Urs Liska wrote Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:23 AM > my patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5067/ > http://codereview.appspot.com/317270043 is currently on countdown. It > introduces the procedures > > - lilypond>? > - lilypond>=? > - lilypond - lilypond<=? > - lilypond=? > > comparing a given version to the one currently compiling the document. > This makes it possible to write library code supporting multiple > LilyPond versions across syntax changes. > > My question is: Where can I add documentation for this? Browsing through > Extending and IR doesn't seem to indicate a suitable place. It *might* > be fitting somewhere in the "General input and output" of the NR, but > I'm way from being sure about that either. As these functions are not intended for the usual LilyPond user I don't think the NR is suitable, other than to have them listed in A22. Similarly, they will also be listed in the IR under Scheme functions. Perhaps the best place to add a description is in Section 2 of the Usage Manual where convert-ly is discussed? A new subsection 2.2 Testing the version (displacing the existing sections down 1) could be added. But I concede mixing with convert-ly is hardly ideal. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lily version operators documentation
On Feb 14, 2017, at 04:23 , Urs Liska wrote: > introduces the procedures > > - lilypond>? [etc.] > comparing a given version to the one currently compiling the document. Adding “version” to the name would be clearer. — Dan ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Lily version operators documentation
Hi, my patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5067/ http://codereview.appspot.com/317270043 is currently on countdown. It introduces the procedures - lilypond>? - lilypond>=? - lilypondhttps://openlilylib.org http://lilypondblog.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
