On 4/27/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the bbox isn't used, but it's no problem, since the "child" bbox isn't > stored, just the expression.
Oh, I missed that. > Frankly, I'm a bit mystified why you're spending so much time on > building the ultimate postscript backend. The backend is not a > performance bottleneck. If you think the current PS code is inefficient, > then you should have a look at the rest of LilyPond. 1. It's the only part of Lilypond I have thus far been able to understand. 2. I like making things small, pretty, and fast. Output especially should be small, pretty, and fast. > Yes, but to me this seems hardly related to music typesetting. I think > it would be in better style to look for a standardized PDF/PS output > library and offload all of the PS/PDF generation to there. Dealing with > PS and PDF is a huge sink of developer time, since it tends to turn up > all kinds of bugs and compatibility problems in > PostScript/GhostScript/acrobat/etc. It would be a good thing if we could > outsource that effort to another project. That's an interesting thought. I don't know if there is such a thing, or whether such a thing would be sufficiently flexible or efficient without being just as hard to deal with. Also, I suspect that by changing the output as I've suggested, we will be better able to deal with compatibility issues. David _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
