Hi Graham,

Thanks for the quick response. Few more comments inline, below.

Trevor.


On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Graham Percival
<gra...@percival-music.ca>wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Trevor Bača <trevorb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Avoiding-tweaks-with-slower-processing
> >
> > ... the language in the LM is somewhat ambiguous as to whether
> > keep-inside-line settings speed things up or slow things down.
> >
> > QUESTION: I have to assume that keep-inside-line is relatively expensive
> and
> > that the recommendation in the LM is to *NOT* use the keep-inside-line
> > settings, yes?
>
> keep-inside-line is expensive.  The recommendation is to leave it off
> (the default) for faster processing.  However, I personally recommend
> to turn it on when creating the final version, so that you don't need
> to manually add \break commands to avoid text running off the
> right-hand side of the page.
>

Very good. Thanks for the clarification.





>
> James, please prepare a patch to clarify this issue.
>
>
> > Next, there is a thread here ...
> >
> >   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-08/msg00057.html
>
> I repeat my previous statement:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-08/msg00111.html
>
> I'd add some swear-words for emphasis if I thought that would help.
>
>
> > I guess the reason I'm writing in to ask the question is that I feel that
> > something has changed for the worse since the early versions of Lily I
> used
> > on the score in 2005
>
> Since then, we've had
> - skyline vertical placement  (you don't need to manually increase the
> padding on text scripts!)
> - better vertical placement of systems on a page (maybe not
> particularly relevant to huge scores when you can only fit one system
> per page anyway)
>
> Both of those are expensive.
>

Ah, good point, on both counts.

The score in question contains no scripts. Hmm ... isn't there a way to turn
off skyline vertical placement?






>
> > (As a postscript, I also have #(define page-breaking ly:minimal-breaking)
> > set in the score because I set all breaks and vertical spacing by hand. I
> > know that certain changes that Joe's made to dramatically improve
> vertical
> > spacing cane be time consumptive in some cases, so maybe this is a
> > precaution to ward against that. However, the setting produces no obvious
> > increase in performance, which makes me think that vertical spacing has
> > nothing to do with the performance difference I'm experiencing.)
>
> Hmm.  1) are you sure that minimal-breaking is the lowest-CPU option?
> Isn't there a naive-breaking, or even a non-automatic-breaking ?  If
> you've manually set *all* breaks and pageBreaks, then theoretically
> that would save a **ton** of CPU resources.
>

Actually, you're right: I'm not certain. I was assuming that minimal would
be the least CPU-intensive option, but I may be wrong. (I've added Joe to
the thread in the hopes that he might weigh in.)




> 2) are you certain that you've defined this in the right place?  I'm
> not suggesting that *I* know the right place, but I'm not certain if
> you're supposed to add this to the top of your file, or inside the
> first \book{} block, or put it in every \score block, or what.


I've currently got the minimal page-breaking setting defined in the
top-level \paper-block in the file (which is also the only \paper-block in
the file). I'm 82.63% certain that that's the correct place.


Trevor.



-- 
Trevor Bača
trevorb...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Reply via email to