immanuel litzroth <ilitzr...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> immanuel litzroth <ilitzr...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> > >> >> They are also humongous, which means a quite larger amount of work >> >> for GUB. >> >> >> > What do you mean with humongous? Boost is large because it has a lot >> > of stuff. >> >> What's your point? "has a lot of stuff" is not independently useful. >> > Well, I don't know GUB so I have idea as to the work involved or > whether it would even make sense.
Well, what's your argument for it making sense? > I do know that writing stuff that boost has on offer is a very bad > idea. Do you have any example for Boost functionality that would have been written independently in LilyPond? Or is this just a theoretical consideration right now? > I also have some experience with c++11 and that has been really > good. That's all folks. Again: where is the actual relation to the LilyPond code base? Without any actual _projects_. like auditing all uses of "list" and seeing which instances could perfectly well be replaced by the more space-, time-, and code-efficient "forward_list" instead, this seems like a pretty academic undertaking. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
