Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>> this is a bit weird case ... on the one hand you specify %5f and such
>> but that's ignored i.e. becomes %s so why not use %s in the first place
>> then
>
> Actually, this was precisely my intention: to show that one could use
> the original format string with different formatting requirements (I
> don't know where that format string is going to come from, if Peter is
> going to type or if it's going to be inserted by some lower-level
> function). But I agree that if the user is going to type it himself,
> he'd better use %s for convenience (Lua is so tolerant anyway).
sure; in this case the %f is deep down in the mkiv code
>> anyway, originally i used %s but when taco and i played with the
>> converter and did some performance tests we found out that %f is faster
>> (unless > 6 digits specified)
>
> I suppose that when Lua sees a %s format with an argument that is not
> a string, he calls tostring which must be much slower.
i think that for any conversion it has to call a function (take hex) but
tostring may be costly due to metatable access, also it seems that
tostring does some stripping
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
| www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
