Re: [frogs] Should _all_ lilypond functions be listed in music-functions-init.ly?

["Carl D. Sorensen" <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 1/10/09 9:36 AM, "Ian Hulin" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I've found some functions that don't have an entry in
> music-functions-init.  So they haven't got docstrings entries so they
> don't appear in the NR Appendix.
> 
> Question 1 : Do all functions need a entry in this file?

Answer:  No.  Only those that are defined as identifiers.

> Question 2: How do we find out what code needs to go in the function
> body if we do need to put it in?

Answer:  If it's not defined as a scheme function somewhere, we don't add
docstrings.

> Question 3: Should I ask on lilypond-bugs about the ones I currently
> know are missing (addlyrics, tolyrics and lyricmode).so we could get a
> tracker raised for this,
> 

Answer:  You don't need to ask.  But if you did, the place to ask would be
-devel.  Then, if you got the answer that the docstrings should be added,
you'd post a short message saying so to bug-lilypond, and Valentin would add
it to the tracker.

The answer as to why these functions aren't listed can only be found if you
have the full source tree.  git grep addlyrics returns

lily/lily-lexer.cc:  {"addlyrics", ADDLYRICS},

which shows that addlyrics is defined in the parser as a component of the
LilyPond language, rather than as an identifier.

Similarly for lyricsto

lily/lily-lexer.cc:  {"lyricsto", LYRICSTO},

and lyricmode

lily/lily-lexer.cc:  {"lyricmode", LYRICMODE},


So you can see that all three of these are actually a part of the lilypond
language, rather than identifiers.

So there's no place to put a doc string for these; they're core parts of the
language.

Thanks for your questions, and I hope my answers are helpful.

Carl


---

----
Join the Frogs!