On 14 mai 2012, at 07:37, Graham Percival wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:51:45AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: >> On 13/05/12 23:34, Graham Percival wrote: >>> LilyPond itself will remain as a command-line "compiler". So this >>> question can be split into two separate ones: >>> - what capabilities should alternate programs (i.e. frescobaldi) >>> have? >>> - what should the input syntax be? >> >> When considering these questions, can some attention be given to the >> possibilities of "real-time" update to the score output, as the code >> is tweaked? > > No. LilyPond is a command-line "compiler". That's something that > would happen in an alternate program. > > Consideration will be given to overall compile speed, but that's > it. A really intelligent editor could only update sections of the > score at once (via the clip or skipMeasures functionality), but > again that's back to "alternate program" territory. >
One idea I've been a fan of for a long time is some type of aux file system in LilyPond. That is, if we can come up with a file format that stores loads of data from previous runs of a score and then can somehow compare it to a parsed file, it could cut compilation time down by about 1/5 for stuff like changing B to B-flat in the Mahler's 9th. I say 1/5 because the line breaking would need to be redone, which means everything afterwards needs to be redone, but the interpretation stage could likely be cut down. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
