On 15.12.2014 11:05, Johan Vromans wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:18:21 +0100
Knut Petersen <knut_peter...@t-online.de> wrote:
Shall we open a lilypond bug report? I don't know - the generated ps code
is valid and works, so there is no real bug. I think it would be a
feature request.
It's a bit of both. PostScript is much more optimized to deal with normal
'show' than 'glyphshow', which is, or should be, used only in exceptional
cases. So it would be beneficial to eliminate glyphshow as much as
possible. This can be obtained the way Ken describes.
Well, I did some very ugly things to a few postscript / low level scm files
this morning.
Nothing for release, only a proof of concept. These are the results from a
luatex test
page including four small lilypond snippets:
pdf file size description
=======================
168275 luaTeX output
152327 luaTeX output after gs optimizing run
1021630 luaTeX output with no-glyphshow-lilypond, gs with SubsetFonts=false
59514 luaTeX output with no-glyphshow-lilypond, gs with SubsetFonts=false,
after gs optimizing run
But instead of fixing this, I think it is much more interesting to
consider reworking the LP backend to directly produce PDF, and eliminate
the ghostscript dependency.
Agreed, but that would be a lot of work. And we still would need ghostscript to
optimize font usage
or a much improved includegraphics in the pdfTeX engine ...
cu,
Knut
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user