Dorico 2, script DOM documentation

Hi

I see Dorico uses Lua for extension purposes, which is cool (we also use Lua in WinGate, as it is easy to interface between your code and the Lua runtime).

Is there any documentation about the objects that are available from the script runtime, and what methods etc they have? The online docs only seem to show a glossary entry for plugins, but no DOM reference I could find.

As an example I wonder if it’s possible to mock up trills for playback using trems.

Thanks

Adrien

See https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=138766&p=746657&hilit=Scripting#p746657 and please try searching before starting a new thread.

Thanks for the link. And I did try searching although I’m not sure what concern it is of yours whether a duplicate topic is posted.

It is not just Leo’s concern. Of course we want you to pose questions here, but generous folks like Leo can help more people if folks discover their questions have already been answered.

It’s also point number 1 in this forum’s General Rules, Terms and Conditions (https://www.steinberg.net/forums/ucp.php?mode=terms)

It’s also helpful for me and other members of the team, who all have full-time jobs and families outside of reading and responding to posts on the forum, not to have to read lots of duplicate threads. Obviously I know that the search features of the forum are terrible, but please do persevere in using them (or use my trick of using Google to search the forum, which often works better), if you possibly can. I’ve only been away from the forum for a day (Saturday!) and there are more than 50 threads I now need to read, so every thread that doesn’t get started because somebody searched for and found an answer is good for me! Thanks for considering.

Hi

as I said, I did a fair bit of searching (however well executed) prior to posting the question.

I’ve run our own product forums (on phpbb, so I know how crap the search is) for many many years (over 14 years), and I’d never dream of suggesting in a response that someone search before posting, but that’s just my personal preference. I only see risk and no upside with that approach. And it takes additional effort to fight the internal struggle let alone type those extra words :slight_smile:

I understand what it’s like to see duplicate posts, and I appreciate all the time people put into reading posts let alone answering them. Especially the clearly huge amount of work leo puts in on this forum.

But I don’t see any positive outcomes from snarky remarks (or remarks which may be taken that way). Maybe the remark wasn’t intended to have that tone, and it’s impossible to convey tone of voice in written words in any case. Some alternatives I’ve found that work pretty well are:

  1. Ignore the post (I can’t in my case with our product forums, but other forum users can)
  2. just post the link to the previous topic with no other comment. From then it’s clear that any search efforts or lack thereof were insufficient, without adding any salt.
  3. just re-answer the question

In the end, people in general ask questions in good faith, and getting a cyber-slap back just doesn’t help anyone.

I think Leo was very polite – he even said “please”!

Thanks Adrien. No malice intended, but I can see how it could have come across - I apologise if that was seen as a cyber-slap.

Maybe I was being too sensitive, no hard feelings!

Anyway, I would expect in a high volume forum like this one that google will be constantly crawling the site and indexing new posts within minutes, and google despite their other faults has a fairly excellent search engine. I did google the issue but didn’t see any forum posts in the results page (at least page 1).

Cheers all, and have a good weekend! I hope the weather for you is better than it is for me here in Auckland.

This link seems broken. Try this instead:

This forum moved from phpBB to Discourse about a month ago, breaking quite a lot of old links. I’m certainly not going to go through my previous 9000+ posts (let alone anyone else’s) to correct all of the old links. Sorry!

1 Like

I’ll take a look at this particular link as it seems to be escaping the regexes to transform it.

1 Like

Regexes updated to include that link pattern. Now working.

1 Like