[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do we really offer the future?
From: |
H. S. Teoh |
Subject: |
Re: Do we really offer the future? |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Apr 2015 14:13:37 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:47:02PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> >> Why would you want to check each bar twice?
> > These bar checks are mostly for humans to ease reading of the code,
> > not for machine interpreting.
>
> Does it double the time required?
> And if so, what total amount of processing time is actually added
> (say, per 100 bar checks)?
[...]
As far as I understand (I could be wrong), the amount of time it takes
to do a bar check is by far outweighed by the more complex tasks that
Lilypond does -- layout, collision avoidance, line-breaking,
page-breaking, etc.. So much so it probably only adds up to roundoff
error in the total computing time.
T
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they
start making vacuum cleaners... -- Slashdotter
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, (continued)
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Johan Vromans, 2015/04/26
- Chord charts (Re: Do we really offer the future?), dl . mcnamara, 2015/04/26
- Re: Chord charts (Re: Do we really offer the future?), Johan Vromans, 2015/04/26
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Michael Hendry, 2015/04/26
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Simon Albrecht, 2015/04/26
- RE: Do we really offer the future?, Mark Stephen Mrotek, 2015/04/26
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Righteous Coda Music, 2015/04/26
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Kieren MacMillan, 2015/04/26
- Re: Do we really offer the future?,
H. S. Teoh <=