On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:54:18AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> It is there just to be able to turn off bidi, then imho it should be
> >> removed. Less special cases and behaviour changing with different
> >> parameters turned on/off.
> >
> | Exac
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:30:19AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Hu?
>>
>> It is there just to be able to turn off bidi, then imho it should be
>> removed. Less special cases and behaviour changing with different
>> parameters turned on/off.
>
|
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:30:19AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Hu?
>
> It is there just to be able to turn off bidi, then imho it should be
> removed. Less special cases and behaviour changing with different
> parameters turned on/off.
Exactly. So you would be happy to see it excised ?
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Does this really provide a worthwhile speed increase ?
>
| Or does it make some mysterious behaviour difference for non-bidi
| documents ?
Hu?
It is there just to be able to turn off bidi, then imho it should be
removed. Less special cases and behaviour
Does this really provide a worthwhile speed increase ?
Or does it make some mysterious behaviour difference for non-bidi
documents ?
regards
john
--
"I continue to be amazed at what Andrei can make templates do. Some of it
still makes my head hurt."
- Herb Sutter
