[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: file-equal-p
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: file-equal-p |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Feb 2023 08:26:57 +0200 |
> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:40:59 +0800
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 20:34:04 +0800
> >>
> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > It is still one more test, done for everyone.
> >>
> >> Is file-equal-p a function called in particularly tight loops?
> >
> > I don't know, but punishing everyone for the benefit of a single OS
> > sounds wrong to me.
>
> Why would a single conditional be punishment, though?
It takes non-zero CPU time.
Anyway, why would you object to a simple request to re-arrange your
change slightly? I don't understand why such a simple request needs
several messages to discuss, even if you don't consider the request
necessary? Don't we both have more useful things to invest our time?"
- file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/15
- Re: file-equal-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/17
- Re: file-equal-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/17
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/17
- Re: file-equal-p, Andreas Schwab, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Michael Albinus, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Po Lu, 2023/02/16
- Re: file-equal-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/16
Re: file-equal-p, Richard Stallman, 2023/02/16