Karlin High <karlinh...@gmail.com> writes: > On 1/24/2019 2:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Thomas Morley<thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: >>> In other posts you wrote about the possibility we could fork guilev1. >>> Do you see any way to implement full Unicode support in such a fork of >>> our own and in a saner way than current guilev2? > >> If we had that amount of manpower, that work would likely be better >> implemented in fixing Guile2. > > Interesting discussion, even though I have little competence in these > topics. I appreciate the dispassionate overview of LilyPond's > relations to the Guile project. > > Work has been done towards having LilyPond able to use Guile2. Any > comments on the value of continuing those efforts?
Development happens on Guile2, none on Guile1. At the current point of time, Guile2 does not appear competitive but we haven't yet made use of the byte compiler (not that there appears to be any stock scheme of actually installing .go files for a finished application). I am not the right person to get the active Guile developer(s) to go anywhere but then it's not like LilyPond should be tied to my person to a degree where that would be the only viable option. Our Guile2 efforts certainly have helped pinpointing a number of bugs with Guile2 that would have ended up as showstoppers and that eventually got fixed due to our reports. So far, I'd say that LilyPond did more for Guile2 than the other way round. Still a net benefit for free software. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
