John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
>> I nice implication of this might be that we won't need a BufferList
>> anymore (at least not explicit), but keep only open those buffers that
>> has a BufferView.
>
| Eh, how would th
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| John Levon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>>
>>> I nice implication of this might be that we won't need a BufferList
>>> anymore (at least not explicit), but keep only open those buffers that
>>> has a B
Has anybody done any kind of profiling to show that this is really
needed?
[I mean, the code is not bad, but this pretty much looks like premature
optimization in the light of 'rebreak much and often'...]
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
n
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| John Levon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>>
>>> I nice implication of this might be that we won't need a BufferList
>>> anymore (at least not explicit), but keep only open those buffers that
>>> has a B
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:04:35PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Presumably the BufferView would have a
> shared_ptr buffer_;
Oh ok.
john
--
Khendon's Law:
If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.
Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | Has anybody done any kind of profiling to show that this is really
>> | needed?
>>>
>> | [I mean, the code is not bad, but this pretty much looks like premature
>> |
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Has anybody done any kind of profiling to show that this is really
| needed?
>
| [I mean, the code is not bad, but this pretty much looks like premature
| optimization in the light of 'rebreak much and often'...]
It might not be needed after you are don
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Has anybody done any kind of profiling to show that this is really
> | needed?
>>
> | [I mean, the code is not bad, but this pretty much looks like premature
> | optimization in the light of 'rebreak much and often'...]
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> I nice implication of this might be that we won't need a BufferList
> anymore (at least not explicit), but keep only open those buffers that
> has a BufferView.
Eh, how would that work ?
john
--
Khendon's Law:
If the same po
John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
>> I nice implication of this might be that we won't need a BufferList
>> anymore (at least not explicit), but keep only open those buffers that
>> has a BufferView.
>
> Eh, how would that work ?
>
> john
Angus Leeming wrote:
> As I read it, I think that Lars is saying we could store a BufferViewList.
Note that this is needed in any case (for multiple bufferviews).
Alfredo
11 matches
Mail list logo
