Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?

[Mike Solomon]

On Dec 15, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:

Werner LEMBERG wrote Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:07 AM

raw/final would be shorter than pure/unpure.

I like that.  At least for me this is easier to understand from a
conceptual point of view.

pencil/ink.

All of these are good - the use of “pure” (not sure who started it - maybe Joe?) comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function

1. The function always evaluates the same result value given the same argument value(s). The function result value cannot depend on any hidden information or state that may change as program execution proceeds or between different executions of the program, nor can it depend on any external input from I/O devices.

2. Evaluation of the result does not cause any semantically observable side effect or output, such as mutation of mutable objects or output to I/O devices.

Currently, LilyPond’s pure functions do (2) but not (1).  I don’t even think it’s desirable that they do (1), as the approximation can get better over time. (2), however, is very important.  (2) would mean we’re inking things elsewhere.

Cheers,

MS