On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:14:23 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > I mean, for the longest time, the main (among many) boosting claim > seemed to be that the speed difference between in-file and > in-filename made the former prohibitive in practice. Perhaps the > benchmarks the council asked for are disproving this. I don't know > but I know I sure see a lot less of that claim, call it a deemphasis > if you will, now, only that the filename method (i.e. glep55) isn't > slower. <shrug>
Uhm. No it hasn't. That is completely and utterly wrong. The main argument has always been that it's the only solution that allows the full variety of changes. The performance thing is a side note on a sub argument that's got nothing to do with the main point. Unfortunately, since GLEP 55 is clearly the only answer when you consider the variety of changes argument, people refuse to talk about it. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
