Analog community, Regarding Analog's lack of cross-referencing, I would like to suggest that broken link analysis is important enough to warrant an exception to this policy.
Regarding the speed and memory hit mentioned in the FAQ, can't that decision be left to the user? If analog were modified to support this feature, would there necessarily be a performance hit if that particular report option were not requested by the user? [Technical observations made without benefit of looking at the source code: If, for example, a hierarchical "broken link" report is not requested by the user but is supported by analog, it seems that there should be no memory penalty and probably only a minor performance penalty due to an extra conditional. The performance penalty might be removed at the cost of expanding the code size (templating the source code to generate almost identical duplicates of certain functions). Is this true?] Thanks, Kevin +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this | mailing list, go to | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | List archives are available at | http://www.mail-archive.com/analog-help@lists.isite.net/ | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/ | http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
