[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev 'lynx -dont-wrap-pre' switch, SET_SKIP_STACK behaviour

From: Vlad Harchev
Subject: Re: lynx-dev 'lynx -dont-wrap-pre' switch, SET_SKIP_STACK behaviour
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:58:23 +0400 (SAMT)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:
> >  OK, I will update -help and 'man' entries.
> >  As for references to -crawl'ing I don't understand what you meant.
> I meant that, instead of writing "when -dump'ing and -crawl'ing" (as in
> the -help message), you could write "when -dump'ing" to save some space.

   -help description of '-dont-wrap-pre' takes 2 lines now, so 'and -crawling'
could be left there.

> > > You don't need to do that with UTF-8, it's a nice encoding in that you
> > > can just scan backwards until you hit a byte with (c & 0xC0) != 0x80.
> > 
> >  It's slower than simply reading the previously stored value - some member 
> > of
> > HText structure.
> If you want to go to that level of fine tuning, you should also consider
> the effects of cache memory, register contention, etc.  IOW, I don't
> believe "it's slower" until you can back it up with data.
> Anyway, these would be insignificant differences (and it's all hypothetical
> in the first place...).
> > And seems you forgot about CJK.
> No, I didn't.  We treat data as UTF-8 in UTF-8 display mode, we treat
> data as CJK characters in CJK display mode, as usual; any problem with
> that?

 How many bytes CJK character takes? Is it fixed number? (Seems CJK texts are
non-stateless - am I right?) IMO it's much easier to use previously stored 
pointer (or offset) than compute the starting  position of the previous 
character with the algorithm that depends on the display mode, etc) - this
simplifies the code greatly.


 Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]