[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Patch] Locate: Move counting and limit-checking into visitors.
From: |
Buzz |
Subject: |
Re: [Patch] Locate: Move counting and limit-checking into visitors. |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:47:47 +0200 (MET DST) |
User-agent: |
slrn/0.9.8.1 (Win32) Hamster/2.0.6.0 KorrNews/4.2 |
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:59:30 +0200 (MET DST) schreef ik
in <address@hidden>:
: Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:16 +0100 schreef James Youngman
: in <address@hidden>:
:: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:10:55PM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote:
[...]
:: > Following patch moves limit-checking and counting into visitors.
:: > When neither is done, a visitor is added which will increment
:: > items_accepted once, then remove itself from the list.
::
:: I like visit_count() and visit_limit() but I'm not sure about
:: visit_found(). The latter is interesting but complicates the code -
:: what are the benefits that make it worthwhile to make the code more
:: complex? I admit that the difference is small.
:
: If you don't have visit_found, you can't determine whether anything was
: found, and therefore it will be impossible to set the returnvalue of
: the program sensibly. Having to do visit_count every time would be
: slower.
I've since done some testing. The speed-gain is only ca. 0.5%.
The difference in binary-size is however also tiny.
If, when you're back, you say you /still/ prefer to do without
visit_found, I'll prepare another patch.
L8r,
Buzz.
--
) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
-- | | / / really is | and false bits entirely. | mail for
) | | / / a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
-- \--| /--- /--- .sigfile. | |perl -pe "s.u(z)\1.as." | me. 4^re