>From: "Eric Strovink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Of course the slowest stuff should be optimized first...
>
> Right. Which means the Guide, if it is not already so doing, ought to
> rank-order the optimizations in their order of importance, or better,
their
> relative importance. This one, it appears, should be near the bottom of
the
> list.
>From: "Matt Sergeant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Of course you can optimize forever, but some optimizations aren't going to
> make a whole lot of difference. This is one of those optimizations,
> judging by these benchmarks. Let Stas re-write this benchmark test as a
> handler() and see what kind of difference it makes. I'm willing to
> bet: barely any between averages.
>
> Perhaps I was a little strong: Lets not deprecate this part of the guide,
> just provide some realism in the conclusion.
Agreed, all optimizations should be put under perspective, and the guide
(and book :-) should put forward those that count most.
This said, i hurry back to s/"constant strings"/'constant strings'/g;
--
Eric
