Re: Illegal C++

[Nicolas Sceaux]

"Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> writes:

>>From: Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden>
>>"Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > lilypond uses an interpretive language (Scheme)
>>
>>No. LilyPond uses an *implementation* of Scheme, namely guile, which
>>only provides an interpreter, but no compiler, unlike many other Scheme
>>implementations.  Please do not widespread wrong clichés.
>>
> Well sure - except that "interpretive" isn't ever an accurate
> description of a *language* - any language can fully compiled,
> partially compiled (e.g. Java), or fully interpreted.

Again, no. "Interpretive" is *never* an accurate description of a
*language*. You're confusing with *implementations* of a language.
Implementations can provide compilers or interpreters, not languages.
 
> But I agree it would more accurate to see lilypond uses an
> interpret*ed* language (Scheme).

uh? I don't think that using a Scheme implementation with no compiler
is an advantage.

> Even if it did use pre-compiled scheme, because lilypond supports
> compiling scores that contain Scheme code, it would still require
> effectively interpretive processing, which is not doubt a large reason
> for it's less-than-blinding-fast operation.

My personnal experience is that parsing is not, by far, the longest part
in a score compilation. So I would not say that this is a large reason,
no.