Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 13:11 +0000 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
> > > would be too painful.
> > 
> > Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there.  So
> > what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytecode to work
> > there?  [...]
> 
> I don't know, really.  I have zero feeling for that.  Of course it
> would be nice if `make doc` doesn't become much slower.  Whether this
> can be easily done, I have no clue.
> 
> > P.S.: This is getting a bit annoying, but I honestly have no clue
> > how I could ask the questions in a better way that you answer all
> > of
> > them in one reply...
> 
> What exactly is unclear if I write "please proceed"?

Originally the whole point of the thread was "where" to proceed:
Continue working on proper bytecode compilation (because that is a
requirement), or tackle the other topics such as how to build binaries.
This only got side-tracked by questioning if Guile 2.2 makes sense at
all, which I didn't anticipate in the beginning.

By now I guess just nobody cares to tell me in advance and whatever I
choose to do, it will be questioned when I try to proceed to the next
steps...

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part