[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why.
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why. |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:46:14 +0200 (CEST) |
> as I have suspected, and it happens because the number of arguments
> passed to `pdf*pop' (in the second call) is larger than 1000 or so
> (in the variable `pdf:href.map.internal'). The message is
> misleading for the normal user, but internally macro arguments are
> indeed pushed onto a stack (function `interpolate_arg' in
> input.cpp).
I wonder whether your current implementation is optimal. Wouldn't it
be better to create pseudo-arrays (i.e., `foo-1', `foo-2', ...),
passing indices to the recursive macro calls, instead of a very long
string which has to be parsed into single arguments again and again?
Werner
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., (continued)
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Peter Schaffter, 2004/09/24
Re: <OK> [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., M Bianchi, 2004/09/24
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Tadziu Hoffmann, 2004/09/28
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Larry Kollar, 2004/09/23
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Keith MARSHALL, 2004/09/24