Re: Using .ily for included lilypond files

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 06:12:28PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> In the large "DOC: Makefile" thread that nobody new is going to
>> read, there was a proposal to use .ily to indicate "setup"
>> lilypond files.
>>
> by "setup" files do you mean stuff like "english.ly"?

I really meant things like spanner-init.ly : fundamental lilypond
.ly files which must be loaded.  But yes, it should also be done
to things like english.ly.

>  I was only  
> thinking about input files holding all the notes and macros.  Should the  
> language files and old styles like gregorian also be .ily files?

I think so.  The general rule would be that lilypond files which
contain no notes or music should be .ily.

>> so I'm asking somebody to take the
>> next step: integrate this with lilypond.
>>
>> - change (almost) everything in ly/ to .ily.
>> - update the internal "loading included files" stuff.
>> - update the docs (i.e. \include "gregorian.ly" should now
>>   just be "gregorian.ily")
>
> I can manage this part.  I'll have to do some scouring if we want to  
> change all instances of \include "filename.ly" in the docs.

No you won't.  You make the convert-ly rule.  Make sure you
include everything in the ly/ dir.  Then run convert-ly on the
docs, regtests, input/lsr, etc.

If anything doesn't work, then you missed something in the
convert-ly rule.  You really shouldn't need to manually change the
docs at all.

(now, if you're not comfortable changing convert-ly, then you'll
either need to learn, or wait for somebody else to do it)


> I also still have to incorporate Carl's suggestions on  
> nested \relative stuff from another thread. (I haven't forgotten!)

I'd do that first, since it's easier.  And speaking of forgetting,
there were two other doc items that people offered to do, but who
haven't completed them.  Ideally you'd know what I'm talking
about, and go pester those people.

I didn't think they were absolutely vital changes, so I've
forgotten the specifics... one had to do with OSX stuff, and the
other was either about vocals or polyphony.

Cheers,
- Graham