Ivan Zhakov wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> It seems the main problem here is simply that this log message summary line >> gives >> a false impression about the magnitude of this particular change. [...] >> I totally support this particular kind of change. It's simply good interface >> design. > > I completely agree with Julian: the change itself is good, but > performance should not be justification for it.
I don't want to drag out this thread any longer, but to make sure my position is clear: I think performance IS a sufficient justification. I also think design style would be a sufficient justification. Either of those alone or both together would be sufficient. (And they are not entirely separate.) - Julian > It makes design more > clear and consistent with other function that have IGNORE_ENOENT > argument.
