[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros
From: |
James K. Lowden |
Subject: |
Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:56:57 -0400 |
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:03:28 +0000
Ralph Corderoy <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Of course it's a valid comparison. Which sed or awk or shell script
> > is distributed in a stripped/compressed form? Do they store their
> > AST somewhere, so as to avoid recompilation? They do not. Just as
> > with groff, every parse starts anew.
>
> It seems you're not aware that groff runs the source. It doesn't have
> an intermediate representation like those other commands I listed.
> Thus every invocation of a macro, or iteration around a loop, reads
> each character anew.
You seem to be saying there's some significance to groff's internal
representation, or lack thereof. Why? I doubt it makes any measurable
difference. Parsing likely dominates performance in languages that
execute relatively few loops.
If I'm wrong, and the lack of an internal efficient representation is
actually a dramatic drag on performance, then surely the solution lies
not in compressing macro sources, but in improving the software, so
that the benefit accrues to all, compressed and not.
--jkl
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Doug McIlroy, 2019/03/14
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Colin Watson, 2019/03/14
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/03/14
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, James K. Lowden, 2019/03/15
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/03/15
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros,
James K. Lowden <=
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/03/17
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Ingo Schwarze, 2019/03/18
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/03/18
- Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros, Ingo Schwarze, 2019/03/18