Thanks for your explanation Finn.  (Also thanks Peter
and Andreas for taking the time to respond--I read
through both your messages quite carefully as well, in
order to better understand the property resolution
issues involved.)  I looked at the current code and
the patch again, and I think I now have a better
understanding of why it performs faster.

Anyway, +1 for this change, except I would like to
have  the FONode.start() methods renamed to
.startOfNode().   IMO it is a little more descriptive
to newcomers to the code (even if annoying for those
very familiar with the code.)  Also it complements the
endOfNode() method (although I admittedly renamed that
from end()), and  it helps with global searches/S&R's,
as start() may also be defined in other packages with
completely different meanings.


--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Reply via email to