On 01/06/2010 03:39 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck<rgh...@bobjweil.com> writes:
Not that it's a big deal, but it seems a bit of a waste to have both
lyx_func_map and lyx_info_map here, since lyx_info_map actually
contains the info that lyx_func_map does. The changes needed if we
eliminate lyx_func_map seem pretty minor, too. Anyone know of a reason
not to do this?
It seems that you are right about this. Unless there is some speed
argument, but I'd be surprised.
I looked and don't think the extra map is accessed frequently enough for
there to be a speed argument. It happens (a) when loading the bind files
and such, (b) when using the mini-buffer, and (c) when playing with the
shortcuts editor.
Anyway, before I do this---if I do this---do you happen to remember what
the real/pseudo-action distinction was?
Concerning speed, why not use a vector instead of a map<FuncCode,
FuncInfo>?
Won't searching the map (sorted tree) for a FuncCode be faster than
searching through the vector to find the one that has it?
rh
