Thanks for testing!
Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 22:16 +0200 schrieb Thomas Morley:
> Am So., 18. Apr. 2021 um 16:41 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
> :
> > Currently I'm testing both. From a user's and a developer's point of view.
> > I'll post about it in the (late) evening or tomorrow.
> > Please ha
Hi Thomas,
> (1)
> The whole cycle worked fine, no errors apart from my own.
> Though, regtest-comparision shows:
> WARNING: (lily song): imported module (lily song-util) overrides core
> binding `compose'
> For input/regression/song-melisma.log and others.
> Which is new with guile-2.
> No clue h
Am So., 18. Apr. 2021 um 16:41 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
:
>
> Am So., 18. Apr. 2021 um 15:38 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
> Discussions on LilyPond development :
> >
> > Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 13:11 + schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > > > For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Sc
> By now I guess just nobody cares to tell me in advance and whatever
> I choose to do, it will be questioned when I try to proceed to the
> next steps...
Well, I *do* care, but I simply don't have enough knowledge to give
even an uneducated guess as answers to your questions, sorry.
Werne
Am So., 18. Apr. 2021 um 15:38 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development :
>
> Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 13:11 + schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > > For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
> > > > would be too painful.
> > >
> > > Agreed for user
Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 13:11 + schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
> > > would be too painful.
> >
> > Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there. So
> > what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytec
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
>>> would be too painful.
>>
>> Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there. So
>> what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytecode to work
>> there? [...]
>
> I don't know, r
>> For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
>> would be too painful.
>
> Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there. So
> what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytecode to work
> there? [...]
I don't know, really. I have zero feeling for
Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 10:35 + schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > Working towards a fork of Guile 1.8 was never meant to be a good
> > > option, rather as a last resort if speed differences make normal
> > > work too painful.
> >
> > Well, the question of this thread was: What is "too painfu
>> Working towards a fork of Guile 1.8 was never meant to be a good
>> option, rather as a last resort if speed differences make normal
>> work too painful.
>
> Well, the question of this thread was: What is "too painful"? Do we
> require less "speed differences" than what I measured? In general
Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 05:31 + schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > I stand corrected. Somehow I got the impression that compiled
> > > Scheme code is a 3.x thing only.
> >
> > So with that hopefully clarified, does this change your assessment
> > that we should work towards forking our own G
Hello,
Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on
April 19th.
A list of all merge requests can be found here:
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests?sort=label_priority
Push:
!720 Mark tremolos on cross-staff beams as cross-staff - Jean Abou-
12 matches
Mail list logo
