"m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes: > It is true that line-breaking is a centralized option based on what > the toplevel-book-handler is, but it should be as lightweight as > possible. I think that the smaller we can keep paper-book.cc and > paper-score.cc, the better. I've been saying this for a couple years, > but I'd prefer for Book and PaperScore to be grobs so that even they > could use the callback model. At that point, line breaking could just > be controlled by callbacks.
Distributing algorithms in that manner without central control/arbitration means O(n^2) complexity at least. It tends to lend itself better to parallelizing, but when your average system does not have thousands of processors, that advantage remains very limited. Of course, a half-baked not-well-understood global hackery touching stuff in lots of indiscriminate places is not what this is about. The interdependencies need to be stated as local relations, of course. It is just that the resolution is to be done globally. Of course this necessitates that the dependencies are formulated in a _systematic_ manner and in the same way everywhere, using well-crafted interfaces/ways of specification rather than in willy-nilly adhoc jumbles of callbacks. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
