John Summerfield wrote:
> This is a silly, negative response. If the patch does what Wojtek says,
> the IMV it should be applied to the source.
A patch to speed up a strange use of a program is what
seams silly. less (and more) are interactive. why use
them in a non interactive way? What's the purpose?
> It has no significant impact on its size. I can't tell whether there's
> an adverse impact on small machines - if so, then it needs to caclulate
> a buffer size and use the and that's more involved, but if Wojtek's
> right, worth doing.
Since he said to run on a 128M+ system,
I take it a low mem system would have trouble.
A 100 x increase in the buffer size is a lot if
the current buffer is 1MB, but not much if it's only 1KB.
Would making it dynamic not slow it down and negate
the improvement?
> I suggest offering the patch to its author. See http://www.greenwoodsoft
> ware.com/less/
That's reasonable.
-Thomas
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
