On Sunday 2004-06-20 11:44 -0700, Bernd wrote: > "L. David Baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > > On Thursday 2004-05-06 16:21 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > I'd like to emphasize this point again, since nobody responded. :-)
> Sorry for the silence, but I was not certain how that proposal effects > the table code and before making unqualified comments due to the lack > of time on my side I prefered to keep silent. > > - Does your proposal require a rewrite on table width balancing code? > - I think we currently have a very low level of bug reports against > the balancing code, what do we gain from that change? It shouldn't require a rewrite. It's likely to require some changes to the algorithm around the edges, since APIs it uses would change, but I'd hope that could be done without changing the logic. That said, I haven't looked into that part too closely yet. This is more a discussion of requirements than design -- I want to gain acceptance of the requirements before going too far into the design (although I do have significant parts of the design already thought through). -David -- L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
pgpFlNtMfSArM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
