Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:

>>> 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.

Well, it would be sort of embarrassing to wait for the users to complain
about an utterly non-working installation because they are the first to
get to test a version using bytecode.

-- 
David Kastrup