On Apr 10, 10:19 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
I think we define compression differently. In my book, redundancy
elimination and compression are pretty much synonymous. It sounds like
you are using a more specific definition (LZW?).
If that was true then string interning would
My backlog of patches and other work is very long, unfortunately. But I
hope to spend some time reducing it this week, hopefully getting to this.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Wink Saville w...@google.com wrote:
Has anyone been able to look at this, do I need to make some
changes or do
BTW, probably the ideal approach would be to make the Mutex class itself
immune to initialization ordering problems. That is, if you allocate a
Mutex statically, it shouldn't matter if its constructor has been run yet
when you try to lock it. (The Mutex class in our internal codebase works
like
Thanks for doing this! Can you send it to me as a code review via
codereview.appspot.com? Also, you'll need to sign the CLA if you haven't
already:
http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html -- If you own
copyright on your work.
http://code.google.com/legal/corporate-cla-v1.0.html --
I did some searching and my initial reaction is that this requires some
initialization
of the mutex at load time which may not be possible in windows. But if you
have
a technique in mind let me know.
I wonder if another option might be better in the long term. And that is to
have an
