On 2/27/13, Jure Zitnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/26/13 7:08 PM, Olemis Lang wrote: >> On 2/26/13, Jure Zitnik <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2/26/13 10:01 AM, Olemis Lang wrote: [...] >>> jftr, I understand reasoning for trying to find out another way and not >>> go with the O(p) plugin tables. Please note that the current approach >>> has been proposed in BEP-0003 a couple of months ago and that all work >>> done till now was following that design. >> Yes , I get it . I'm just trying to push a little because O(p) order >> of magnitude is not encouraging ... so any effort we make towards >> getting rid of it will be positive afaics > > I agree, we need to discuss this for the reasons known. And I agree that > if we find another way it'll definitely have positive affect.
ack ... /me thinking ... -- Regards, Olemis.
