From: Glenn L. <pe...@ne...> - 2004-05-14 16:36:15
|
On approximately 5/14/2004 9:12 AM, came the following characters from the keyboard of Johan Lindstrom: > Hehe :) > > My point is that the module should hide the memory management junk from me. > > If I use the module, I want the user to select files, I don't want to > allocate memory. I don't want to have to care about that. So the default > behaviour should work for most people, most of the time. No surprises. > The performance overhead in this case can obviously be ignored. > > The default behaviour should be overridable for those moments where the > default buffer is too small or too large. But that's a bonus. Thanks for the clarification. (Isn't it amazing how many ways things can be interpreted?) So then I think your point, translated to implementation requirements, would be to: 1) Use a 256 byte buffer for -multisel => 0 (why waste memory) 2) Use a 4000 byte buffer for -multisel => 1 (allow more files to be selected normally, even if the user hasn't caught on to doing memory management) 3) For simplicity, and smaller numbers, one could just multiply -multisel by 4000 with a minimum of 256 bytes for the zero case, and achieve all these goals. And a 4000 byte granularity on allocation of the buffer is probably not a big deal for people that need big buffers. I've made these adjustments. I'll hold off committing them until next week, in case there are other comments. -- Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/ =========================== The best part about procrastination is that you are never bored, because you have all kinds of things that you should be doing. |