Re: Rational

[Hans Åberg]

> On 23 May 2018, at 12:20, David Kastrup <address@hidden> 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.