far from being useable still? (Would be happy if this is
wrong).
There were also thoughts on how one could include a similar
functionality in Frescobaldi, but I don't think one can expect such a
thing soon ...
Best
Urs
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabb
ttp://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/CPU-usage-and-barchecks-tp141433p141530.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Antonio Gervasoni wrote:
> I wonder if a future version of Lilypond would be able to compile only
> the parts that change. Maybe with some kind of version control management
> incorporated into the software. Don't know why it wasn't included from the
> beginning but g
ilypond would be able to compile only
the parts that change. Maybe with some kind of version control management
incorporated into the software. Don't know why it wasn't included from the
beginning but guess it's because it's not as easy as it sounds. LOL
Regards,
Antonio
--
View
Antonio Gervasoni gmail.com> writes:
> I've been using Lilypond for over a year and I've always noticed it requires
> a lot of CPU resources to engrave a score. This is especially noticeable
> when working on big orchestral scores. I use a Macbook Pro and one single
> engraving of an orchestral s
Antonio Gervasoni writes:
> I wonder if having a barcheck for every measure has something to do
> with this. The score I'm working on has 25 staves and is 220 bars
> long. Also, of those 25 staves, 9 are used for two instruments so in
> the end it's just like having 34 staves. Then, 34*220 makes
message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/CPU-usage-and-barchecks-tp141433.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
