Hello, On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:44:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:06:21PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:25:39AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > > wrote: > > > > I still don't understand why you think that the current hardcoded > > > "descend into all directories, then match all subdirectories against > > > foo" is more efficient than "descend into all directories matching * > > > (i.e. all directories), then match all subdirectories against > > > foo"?... > [...] > > The misunderstanding, IMHO, appeared mainly due to the fact that I > > didn't universally take into account the fact that you don't need to > > go deeper than the number of components in the pattern :-( > > Well, now that the misunderstanding seems resolved -- what's the status > on this?...
This has been discussed on the IRC (Oct 29, 2009) and I will answer for the record. I haven't worked on this problem for a long time already due to the fact that I only have the possibility to work on a single Hurd task at a time. I will look into this problem soon and will decide whether it can be implemented without much effort. If it proves to possible, I'll do this more or less soon; otherwise I'll leave it for the better times. Regards, scolobb
