From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2005-06-06 18:53:40
|
> * Bruno Haible <oe...@py...t> [2005-05-30 14:54:30 +0200]: > > This patch is nonsense. It replaces a broken code with another broken code. > I'm now committing a patch that fixes both of these. OK, so I now I know: to get you to fix something, I have to try to fix it twice :-) >> OTOH, the whole notion of precomputing these ranges is suspect. > ?! It's the principle of ahead-of-time compilation. it makes sense only if you are computing something useful. these ranges are useless. how about about storing a table of first 1000 primes or the first 1000 digits of pi in every memory image? they are just as useful. >> 3. risk of error for no gain: most people do not need this cache. > > On the contrary: this is a PRO. It allows us to guarantee that the > binding with the iconv() doesn't lead to a clisp that crashes. It > allows us to add the right #ifdefs with __GLIBC_MINOR__ without > waiting for 10 users to report crashes. Why not move this to the test suite then? > Don't do this. This is bad. > 1. It removes a build-time verification, leading to possible crashes > at runtime. we already have a test suite, and we should definitely expand it. > 2. #. and #, are BAD. Never use them if you can avoid them. why? this just puts a literal into the fas file. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k <http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.jihadwatch.org/> <http://pmw.org.il/> <http://www.palestinefacts.org/> <http://www.memri.org/> Of course, I haven't tried it. But it will work. - Isaak Asimov |