Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: > Well, this seems a misunderstanding, mainly due to my English and the > fact, that I only have very intermediate programming experience with > very little theoretical background. > I think basically we want to say the same thing :-)
I consider this extremely unlikely. > I don't find it natural to "walk through" the music from beginning to > end. I should think that this is the only reasonable direction. And indeed, this is what Lilypond essentially does (or did at one time), keeping and maintaining a pruned tree of possibilities as an internal data structure. Keeping the width of the maintained parts of the tree pruned to a maximum width is the art of linear programming. > What I wanted to say is: Only if this would be possible one could > expect a linear increase in processing time with longer scores. As it > is not possible I find it "natural" that processing time increases > exponentially. I suggest you make yourself acquainted with "linear programming". It is not likely that we get to understanding each other when working from incompatible theoretic assumptions. > Maybe there are possible algorithms to substantially simplify or > streamline the tasks lilypond has to do - I don't have the theoretical > background to tell. > But if it's not possible (which I assume), all I wanted to say is that > you can only work around the problem with better hardware. Again: you can't work around exponential complexity for problems of variable size with "better hardware". If you think otherwise, you are likely employing "exponential complexity" as a buzzword rather than in its actual meaning. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
