On 14-02-09 11:17:06, Allan McRae wrote: > On 06/02/14 01:16, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > On 14-02-05 09:18:48, Andrew Gregory wrote: > >> On 02/04/14 at 12:16am, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > >>> Package are processed in the same order as pacman output, so there is no > >>> real > >>> need to sort, we can print directly. This makes the code simpler and > >>> faster. > >>> > >>> The only difference is that local packages will always be printed at the > >>> end. Previously, they were printed before multilib for instance. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Neidhardt <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> contrib/pacsearch.in | 46 ++++++++++++++++------------------------------ > >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > >> > >> This adds an 8 second delay between sync and local results for me on > >> a cold run. It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd prefer to remove > >> the sort by just storing the results in a list. > > > > How is the overall runtime? > > > > Your alternative sounds OK to me, but why is it so important to have > > everything > > printed in one run? > > > > It is bad to have software freeze in the middle of output. The user has > no indication what happened. > > Allan
Right. I did not realize since the "freeze" is below 100ms on my machine. I'll use Andrew's solution. -- Pierre Neidhardt I'm receiving a coded message from EUBIE BLAKE!!
