On 10/3/05, jared r r spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mathematically, yeah, less rules to evaluate = faster, but > without someone bucking up and making a nice demonstration of why > they needed to do 'quick' a lot, the ~tri-monthly discussion of > someone being upset about the last-match thing (on misc@ or pf@) > is kind of a bit worn out... :/
may be it is not about people taking care about performance, but rather is related to the way most people used to think (from using other equipment or else). consider it as reverse polish notation vs. traditional. when i was a child, i used to program my calculator in reverse polish notation, but i also found that it is really difficult to tech some people to understand it. they just used to do it as on paper, with no stacks etc. with quick/no quick in PF it looks similar. placing block at the beginning and then pass stuff that should pass... it is more convenient to most people i know to write down a rule and be sure that they are done with that, *right at that place*. so they write rules that pass the stuff, and then block everything the fsck else.
