I got this reply off-list, so I'll put it back on-list :)
Greets
Maurits
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bec and John Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 augustus 2005 3:27:16 GMT+02:00
To: Maurits Lamers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Su
I was wondering...
if you cannot optimize the code itself very much. maybe it is possible
to improve the way Lilypond parses the ly file.
When I am editing and tweaking a file, I need to change one little
thing and recompile it.
As far as I can see it, lilypond then always runs the complete f
Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
Wahou. This used to be around 40 minutes, in an slightly older
computer, with multiple lilypond invocations.
Lily is getting so cool. Kuddos to Han-Wen and Jan!
Thanks!
the downside to this is that there is little left to optimize, I still
think Lily is a bit slow, but
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> real12m52.841s
>
> Wahou. This used to be around 40 minutes, in an slightly older
> computer, with multiple lilypond invocations.
Woe, 1ee7. To be fair, it should be compared to 1.6 on your current
hardware. Esp. with large scores, as soon as the lilypond process
do
Hi,
I've just converted an old score from lily 1.6 to 2.7.
This 180 page score is built with a single lilypond invocation.
On my laptop (1.5GHz G4, 512 Mo):
robert$ wc -l *ly */*ly
...
27436 total
robert$ time lilypond score.ly > score.log 2>&1
real12m52.841s
user10m43.889s
sys
