Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:59:30 +0200 (MET DST) schreef ik in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: : Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:16 +0100 schreef James Youngman : in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: :: 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 _______________________________________________ Bug-findutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils
