Alexander Kobel <n...@a-kobel.de> writes: > Nicolas Sceaux wrote: >> I was also thinking about that: >> Should the chord repetition function be enabled by default, or should >> the interested user write e.g. \include "chord-repetititon-init.ly" ? >> >> The call to a memorization function for every chords does not look like >> a good idea wrt performances. > > I don't know how much overhead that means. My intuition says it's not > that bad, since it does not at all affect the positioning and layout, > which AFAIK takes the lion's share of LilyPond's runtime. But it's > really just intuition... > > I suppose when this shortcut is polished, it will become part of the > basic syntax in no time, so it should be as easily accessible as > possible.
That, in turn, means that the more brainpower is invested in Lilypond to make it do "the right thing", the harder it gets for Lilypond-reading programs to get it right as well. It might be sensible to have hard and understandable limits about how long things get remembered. Too much of "guess the right thing" means that nobody else can guess. So a smart engine that does a lot of "memoization" sounds like overengineering. Diminuishing returns. A shortcut syntax for \repeat unfold would be likely better parseable. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
