Re: Future of OpenLilyLib

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

> I don't think we're very far from that. Include files already work
> as kinds of modules. I only see two potential differences between modules
> and include files:
> 
> - a module should only be loaded once, even if imported twice in
>   different locations,
> 
> - a module could (optionally?) have its own namespace (Guile module
>   object) with private definitions, and only export the definitions
>   it needs.
> 
> None of these two would be very complicated to add to LilyPond.

Then they should definitely be added: those were things Urs and I discussed (a 
fair bit off-list) as principle obstacles to the integration of “external” code 
(mostly equivalent to OLL at the time) into the ’Pond ecosystem.

I feel like the moment we have a real module system, two things will happen 
fairly quickly:

1. Many \include files (which are, to be fair, pretty cumbersome, especially in 
any reasonably complex file set) will become modules… and modular stylesheets 
will suddenly become exponentially less of a headache to implement.

2. The uptake (and thus maintenance) of really-helpful-but-currently-obscure 
code (e.g., the EE) will ramp up.

What’s required to add those two things you’re talking about?

Thanks,
Kieren.