In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 06:57:18 -0500, Timothy
Brownawell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tbrownaw> On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 04:08 -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
tbrownaw> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
tbrownaw> > > a. you mean like making all fields have a fixed minimum size?
Doable,
tbrownaw> > > but what size is the right minimum?
tbrownaw> >
tbrownaw> > We could just give a hint when we create the ticker, how wide it is
tbrownaw> > likely to get... it's hackish, sure, but most of these fields are
tbrownaw> > pretty consistent in the range they're likely to hit, so I bet you
tbrownaw> > could get 90% of the benefit with something simple like that.
tbrownaw> >
tbrownaw> > Another thing that might help would be, e.g., whenever the column
tbrownaw> > width needs to go up, increasing it by more than the minimum
tbrownaw> > necessary, in the hopes of avoiding future increases.
tbrownaw>
tbrownaw> It used to just set the width to how wide it would get
tbrownaw> before switching to the next higher suffix (so, wide enough
tbrownaw> for "1014.8k"). This wouldn't work very well for tickers
tbrownaw> that are given a maximum count, but those can just use that
tbrownaw> to figure out how wide they need to be.
FYI, I'm working on an idea that does that, more or less. TO be
committed pretty soon.
--
Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://richard.levitte.org/
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including
the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-- C.S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
