> On 23 May 2018, at 12:20, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > ... work on "the problem" has moved beyond the > stage where one can just propose a generic solution, everybody slaps his > forehead and gets to work and does what it takes to do.
How about using what I suggested and what you touched upon in your link? > So if you want to be helpful, let go of your consultants' hat and don > the programmers' hat. I looked a bit at the LilyPond C++ code, but looks so 1990s, and I am on C++17. >> and instead of a suitable reply, I get an endless row of rants, and >> now you fill in with those. > > Just as a reminder: this thread is offspring from an endless row of > rather insulting and condescending rants about LilyPond's > limited-precision rational numbers and you jump-started... I started a new thread to get away from that. > ...a set of > lectures on the Boehm GC on it predicated on the premise that I don't > know my way around it. Now the other guy clearly intended to be both > insulting and condescending in order to get his bidding done. In > contrast to that, you are only condescending and more or less add > accidentally to the implication that everybody involved with LilyPond > programming has to be an idiot compared to yourself. You are on the right way, but your personality gets in the way of thinking it through. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
