On 10/17/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hash: SHA256
> Tony Godshall wrote:
> > About the parser... I'm thinking I can hack the parser that now
> > handles the K, M, etc. suffixes so it works as it did before but also
> > sees a '%' suffix as valid- that would reduce the amount of code
> > necessary to implement --limit-rate nn%.  Any reason not to do so?
> The current parser, and in particular, the actual code that handles, K,
> M, etc, is used by other options, for which percentages are not
> appropriate. Plus, whereas those options have been taking doubles,
> you'll now need some sort of struct to hold information as to whether
> there's a percentage or a direct rate specified.

Yes, that's true.

I guess I'll do a new parser, and to avoid duplicating code, I'll call
the old parser if it doens't have a '%' suffix.


Reply via email to