Re: ob-lilypond

[Christian Moe <mail@christianmoe.com>]

On 6/30/11 8:10 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
> Martyn Jago<martyn.jago@btinternet.com>  writes:
>> (...)
> Great, I've just moved this into the Org-mode core and added it to the
> list of Babel languages.

Great!

>>
>> One distinction that has occurred to me (especially following comments on
>> the mailing list) is that of "babel language" and "babel language work-flow".
>> In other words, I can visualise refactoring ob-lilypond to be no more than
>> a specification of the Lilypond syntax, and working in parallel, on a
>> work-flow implementation for Lilypond that is "opinionated" in terms of
>> adjusting org-babel settings away from their defaults / removing work-flow
>> noise etc. ( org-lilypond.el ) ? Would this make sense, and if so where would
>> it live (aligned to org-babel / a native Emacs mode perhaps)?
>> I hope that makes sense.
>>
>
> That sounds like a good idea.  Ideally ob-lilypond should include just
> those elements expected by the code block interface, namely functions
> for session/external evaluation, for expanding variables in code block
> bodies, and for returning results to Org-mode.  I think that it would be
> a good idea to develop an external org-lilypond to support a more
> comprehensive workflow.

I like this.

I certainly see that the already complex task of making arrangements 
like those in Martyn's examples should be made as easy as possible.

As for the comparatively simple use cases I brought up, once they're 
supported by ob-lilypond I'd be perfectly happy to throw header 
arguments at them.

Yours,
Christian