Good find. It sounds like a pretty simple change to allocate these more sensibly.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Ray Cromwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looking at the output of the compiled Mail application, I noticed the > following property of function declarations: > > function dM(d,b){var a,c;if(b<0){throw AZ(new > zZ(),ij+b)}c=d.a.rows.length;for(a=c;a<=b;++a){pN(d,a)}} > function eM(f,d,c){var e=f.rows[d];for(var b=0;b<c;b++){var > a=$doc.createElement(gi);e.appendChild(a)}} > function pM(a){while(++a.a<a.c.b){if(q4(a.c,a.a)!=null){return}}} > function qZ(){return this.$H||(this.$H=++mp)} > function > oU(d,a,c,b){if(!b||b==c){return}oU(d,a,c,mq((Ep(),b)));ey(a.a,a.b++,b)} > function rU(i,a,e,h) > > note that the function params are assigned single character symbols, but > they are not consistently assigned and in the same order. If instead, the > first arguments of any function were a, b, c, ... appear in order (they > could be any reserved sequence), then characters sequences like > > (a){ > (a,b){ > (a,b,c){ > (a,b,c,d){ > > would appear frequently and yield more backreferences in the LZ77 portion > of the DEFLATE algorithm, plus, they would occur far more frequently, giving > a smaller bit representation in the huffman tables. This might lead to > significant savings when gzipping. > > -Ray > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
