On 19 November 2010 23:17, Valentin Villenave <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's annoying. Should I reopen #1240? (Or possibly open a new issue > about it; we should also consider making it a High-prio, since I doubt > we want to release a new stable version with that much of a > performance drop.) As Graham says, there's no need to reopen #1240; it works fine, even if it slows things down a bit. Hopefully Joe can come up with some more optimizing to reduce its impact. > Interesting. I'm in the process of porting it to my new framework, but > I'd be interested in seeing your diff (I'm guessing beaming stuff, at > the very least?). Ha, I just commented those bits out. :) The main issue was converting prefix \cresc to postfix notation, so there are still plenty of things which need sorting out (quite a few overflowing pages, it seems). I'll send you a patch once I've tidied it up a bit. > Thanks for the heavy benchmarking; your patience and thoroughness amaze me! > :-) No problem; I've been letting it run overnight, so it's not costing much time to benchmark. I'm half hoping my computer will give up the ghost soon so I can justify upgrading to something a bit nippier (MOAR CORES!) Cheers, Neil _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
