Wiz Aus wrote:
From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wiz Aus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: bug-lilypond@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Illegal C++
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:33:10 +0200
Wiz Aus wrote:
Ok, now I'm trying to actually play with the lilypond code -- but it
seems to be full of completely illegal C++ - like trying to cast
class member functions to standalone functions etc. etc.
The cases I've found so far are all very easy to fix, just by adding
proxy function definitions in the macros that set these things up,
so I can't work out why it would be written like this in the first
place.
Because we want to skip the (proxy) function calls for performance
reasons.
Um...lilypond uses an interpretive language (Scheme), goes via TEX and
PS to produce output, and you're worried about a few extra C++
function calls? I would be flabbergasted if this made any measurable
difference to lilypond's performance.
If that's where enough of the CPU time is spent it doesn't matter how
inefficient the rest of the code is.
Paul Scott
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
