Re: Plan for discussions

[address@hidden]

On 14 mai 2012, at 07:37, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:51:45AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On 13/05/12 23:34, Graham Percival wrote:
>>> LilyPond itself will remain as a command-line "compiler".  So this
>>> question can be split into two separate ones:
>>> - what capabilities should alternate programs (i.e. frescobaldi)
>>> have?
>>> - what should the input syntax be?
>> 
>> When considering these questions, can some attention be given to the
>> possibilities of "real-time" update to the score output, as the code
>> is tweaked?
> 
> No.  LilyPond is a command-line "compiler".  That's something that
> would happen in an alternate program.
> 
> Consideration will be given to overall compile speed, but that's
> it.  A really intelligent editor could only update sections of the
> score at once (via the clip or skipMeasures functionality), but
> again that's back to "alternate program" territory.
> 

One idea I've been a fan of for a long time is some type of aux file system in 
LilyPond.  That is, if we can come up with a file format that stores loads of 
data from previous runs of a score and then can somehow compare it to a parsed 
file, it could cut compilation time down by about 1/5 for stuff like changing B 
to B-flat in the Mahler's 9th.  I say 1/5 because the line breaking would need 
to be redone, which means everything afterwards needs to be redone, but the 
interpretation stage could likely be cut down.

Cheers,
MS