Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
>> would be too painful.
> 
> Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there.  So
> what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytecode to work
> there?  [...]

I don't know, really.  I have zero feeling for that.  Of course it
would be nice if `make doc` doesn't become much slower.  Whether this
can be easily done, I have no clue.

> P.S.: This is getting a bit annoying, but I honestly have no clue
> how I could ask the questions in a better way that you answer all of
> them in one reply...

What exactly is unclear if I write "please proceed"?


    Werner