[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Illegal C++

From: Paul Scott
Subject: Re: Illegal C++
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:23:21 -0700
User-agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051001)

Wiz Aus wrote:

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>
To: Wiz Aus <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Illegal C++
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:33:10 +0200

Wiz Aus wrote:

Ok, now I'm trying to actually play with the lilypond code -- but it seems to be full of completely illegal C++ - like trying to cast class member functions to standalone functions etc. etc. The cases I've found so far are all very easy to fix, just by adding proxy function definitions in the macros that set these things up, so I can't work out why it would be written like this in the first place.

Because we want to skip the (proxy) function calls for performance reasons.

Um...lilypond uses an interpretive language (Scheme), goes via TEX and PS to produce output, and you're worried about a few extra C++ function calls? I would be flabbergasted if this made any measurable difference to lilypond's performance.

If that's where enough of the CPU time is spent it doesn't matter how inefficient the rest of the code is.

Paul Scott

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]