I have only the mildest of aesthetic objections. My timings from
before and after introducing the lambda arguments differed only in the
"noise" range. On the other hand, when I tried using psyco, it
crashed very badly, and psyco has recently had problems with lambdas,
so if getting rid of the lambdas allowed psyco to work, that would be
an overwhelming reason to remove the lambdas.
- Stephen
On Apr 18, 9:09 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM, thyrsus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That did it, thanks! The changes are now in the trunk.
>
> I merged these changes into my trunk. All unit tests pass. I like this code
> a lot.
>
> I am considering eliminating the lambda arguments. True, the present code is
> elegant, but it creates one or more function call for every position
> returned. So I may optimize the code for speed by 'hard coding' the values
> returned by the lambda's into multiple copies of the code. This should make
> the new iters faster than the old for all outlines.
>
> Do you have any objections to this plan?
>
> Edward
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
