I guessed you wouldn't be that happy. I don't like it so much, either,
but we're already creating so many little objects, and especially
LinkedList are not that inexpensive. We have to decide on whether we
trade speed and memory consumption with code readability, as we have to
in many other places.
So, I'll merge the branch back into the trunk tomorrow. Optionally
fixing the LMs that don't return KnuthSequences, yet, should be easy.
You had already done the big part.
On 08.08.2005 21:37:11 Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 04:36:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36004
> > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-08 16:36 -------
> > Simon, thanks for your work on inlines and for setting up the branch. As
> > you
> > will have seen, I've hacked around a little bit in the branch and I think
> > we're ready to merge the branch back into trunk. All necessary tests pass.
> > Would you please review? My KnuthElement/KnuthSequence mixture might be
> > subject to discussion but it allowed not adjusting some of the LMs and
> > creates
> > fewer objects that way. WDYT?
> I do not have much time to look at it more closely until Friday or the
> weekend. From what I saw by scanning the svn commit logs, my first
> reaction is that it works, but it is not what I like. It makes the
> code less clean and more complicated by allowing and checking for two
> alternative allowed datastructures. My idea is that all InlineLevelLMs
> return a list of KnuthSequences for getNextKnuthElements. Of course
> you can move it back into the trunk. I can always work further on it
> when it is there.
> Regards, Simon
> Simon Pepping
> home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl