* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2011-04-18 16:21:29 -0500]:
On Mon Apr 18 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2011-04-16 18:19:20 -0500]:
On Fri Apr 15 2011 Leo wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to replace bbdb-defstruct with defstruct?
What benefit(s) would you
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2011-04-16 18:19:20 -0500]:
On Fri Apr 15 2011 Leo wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to replace bbdb-defstruct with defstruct?
What benefit(s) would you expect from that?
- less code duplication (more maintainable)
- smaller memory footprint
- benefit from
On Mon Apr 18 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.emacs.bbdb.user as well.
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2011-04-16 18:19:20 -0500]:
On Fri Apr 15 2011 Leo wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to replace bbdb
On Fri Apr 15 2011 Leo wrote:
I wonder if it makes sense to replace bbdb-defstruct with defstruct?
What benefit(s) would you expect from that? I guess that
bbdb-defstruct is about as efficient and effective as possible for
the needs of BBDB.
Roland
Hello Roland,
I wonder if it makes sense to replace bbdb-defstruct with defstruct?
Leo
--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization
