Re: [Patch] Locate: Move counting and limit-checking into visitors.

[Buzz]

Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:59:30 +0200 (MET DST) schreef ik
in <address@hidden>:
:  Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:16 +0100 schreef James Youngman
:  in <address@hidden>:
::  On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:10:55PM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote:
[...]
:: > Following patch moves limit-checking and counting into visitors.
:: > When neither is done, a visitor is added which will increment
:: > items_accepted once, then remove itself from the list.
::
::  I like visit_count() and visit_limit() but I'm not sure about
::  visit_found().  The latter is interesting but complicates the code -
::  what are the benefits that make it worthwhile to make the code more
::  complex?  I admit that the difference is small.
:
: If you don't have visit_found, you can't determine whether anything was
:  found, and therefore it will be impossible to set the returnvalue of
:  the program sensibly. Having to do visit_count every time would be
:  slower.

I've since done some testing. The speed-gain is only ca. 0.5%.
The difference in binary-size is however also tiny.

If, when you're back, you say you /still/ prefer to do without
visit_found, I'll prepare another patch.


L8r,

Buzz.
-- 
  ) |  | ---/ ---/  Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
--  |  |   /    /   really is |   and false bits entirely.    | mail for
  ) |  |  /    /    a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
--  \--| /--- /---  .sigfile. |   |perl -pe "s.u(z)\1.as."    | me. 4^re