On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:50:27 -0700, <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
On 2012/09/05 06:59:16, Keith wrote:
It costs a lot of programmer time to make the extra rules to save that
0.2%,
Not really.
But, but... flex documentation is pretty clear about [getting rid of] backing
up being very expensive :
"Getting rid of backing up is messy and often may be an enormous amount of work for
a complicated scanner."
Okay. Maybe it didn't take you long to /maintain/ backup-free rules, but it
took me quite a while to remove backing up on the existing rules, when I made
the patch to clean up warnings.
I am not convinced that patterns requiring arbitrary amounts of backing
up make for a good choice of lexical units.
Right. They probably don't.
So I am against removing this advice independently from patches that
might actually require this removal.
Agreed,
but I'll still pout a couple more times that you get your Schemy-dashes and
underscores but I still have to refer to the motif from measure
tousend_sechshundert_siebzig
http://codereview.appspot.com/6493072/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
