Add user-init option to include a custom init snippet (not replacing the whole init file)

Add user-init option to include a custom init snippet (not replacing the whole init file)

This allows the user to apply the same set of options/definitions to different files. In particular,
  lilypond -duser-include=myinclude.ily file.ly
will compile file.ly, but read and execut myinclude.ily before file.ly is processed. That way, e.g. global paper changes can be easily done, and a file can be run several times, each time with a different user-include file containing different settings.

This feature is similar to the --init=DATEI feature, except that --init will replace the whole init sequence (thus your init file will copy all of lilypond's init.ly), while -duser-include will only add some definitions to the normal init sequence in init.ly (i.e. the file is included using scheme in init.ly).

[Neil Puttock, 2010-07-27 20:16:58]

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001
File ly/init.ly (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode26
ly/init.ly:26: #(if (ly:get-option 'user-init)
user-include ?

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode27
ly/init.ly:27: (begin
remove

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode28
ly/init.ly:28: (ly:parser-include-string parser
indent

[Reinhold, 2010-07-28 00:43:07]

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001
File ly/init.ly (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode26
ly/init.ly:26: #(if (ly:get-option 'user-init)
On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
> user-include ?

Hmm, actually, I don't like either user-init (indicates it's part of the init
sequence and has similar uses as the --init command line option; also it sounds
too technical) nor user-include (to me that sounds like setting an include
path)... 

How about custom-definitions or user-definitions (no, sounds too much like it
defines users)?

http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode27
ly/init.ly:27: (begin
On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
> remove

Oops, right. I had a debug statement there, too, which I removed in the second
revision, so the begin is not necessary any more

[Graham Percival, 2010-07-28 00:57:27]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:43:08AM +0000, reinhold.kainhofer@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> user-include ?
>
> Hmm, actually, I don't like either user-init (indicates it's part of the
> init sequence and has similar uses as the --init command line option;
> also it sounds too technical) nor user-include (to me that sounds like
> setting an include path)...
>
> How about custom-definitions or user-definitions (no, sounds too much
> like it defines users)?

Don't forget that this is aimed at lilypond users, not C
programmers -- they're used to seeing&writing \include "".  I
can't imagine many people getting confused with an include path.

I suppose you could use file-include or include-file if you
prefer, but I definitely encourage using "include" somewhere in
the option name.

Cheers,
- Graham

[Ian Hulin, 2010-07-28 10:49:51]

Hi Reinhold,
On 28/07/10 01:43, reinhold.kainhofer@gmail.com wrote:
> Reviewers: Neil Puttock,
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001
> File ly/init.ly (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode26
> ly/init.ly:26: #(if (ly:get-option 'user-init)
> On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> user-include ?
>
> Hmm, actually, I don't like either user-init (indicates it's part of the
> init sequence and has similar uses as the --init command line option;
> also it sounds too technical) nor user-include (to me that sounds like
> setting an include path)...
>
> How about custom-definitions or user-definitions (no, sounds too much
> like it defines users)?
How about --user-startup or --custom-startup?

The real problem you have here is that we use --init option to supersede
the whole startup/initialization file.  This one is an additional one to
do just for this user session, so user-startup says what it does on the can.

Cheers,

Ian

[c_sorensen, 2010-07-28 14:09:54]

On 7/28/10 4:49 AM, "Ian Hulin" <ian@hulin.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi Reinhold,
> On 28/07/10 01:43, reinhold.kainhofer@gmail.com wrote:
>> Reviewers: Neil Puttock,
>> 
>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001
>> File ly/init.ly (right):
>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode26
>> ly/init.ly:26: #(if (ly:get-option 'user-init)
>> On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
>>> user-include ?
>> 
>> Hmm, actually, I don't like either user-init (indicates it's part of the
>> init sequence and has similar uses as the --init command line option;
>> also it sounds too technical) nor user-include (to me that sounds like
>> setting an include path)...
>> 
>> How about custom-definitions or user-definitions (no, sounds too much
>> like it defines users)?
> How about --user-startup or --custom-startup?
> 
> The real problem you have here is that we use --init option to supersede
> the whole startup/initialization file.  This one is an additional one to
> do just for this user session, so user-startup says what it does on the can.

How about --extra-init, or --include-init ?

Carl

[Reinhold, 2010-08-22 14:04:59]

On 2010/07/28 14:09:54, c_sorensen_byu.edu wrote:
> >> On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
> >>> user-include ?
> >> How about custom-definitions or user-definitions (no, sounds too much
> >> like it defines users)?
> > How about --user-startup or --custom-startup?
> How about --extra-init, or --include-init ?

I now changed the option name to -dinclude-settings, which describes it best
IMO. I have also pushed this to master.