I think youz guys are getting a bit bogged down in the argument. My point about
the switching wasn't about them being time-critical (the check_sig() functions
are going to be taking up most of the time anyway), but that the code was a bit
of a mess and a more elegant solution was available, and that C had a perfectly
fine way of solving it.
----- Original Message ----
From: Dennis Schulmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: cinelerra@skolelinux.no
Sent: Saturday, 25 August, 2007 11:17:16 AM
Subject: Re: [CinCVS] Some of my thoughts on scripting
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 17:38 +1200, David McNab wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 10:41 +0800, Martin Ellison wrote:
> > But anyway, what is wrong with switches?
>
> You find out soon enough if you've got a big switch in a tight
> time-critical loop.
You wouldn't create new objects in such a loop, anyway. You'd rather use
either static objects or pre-created objects.
___________________________________________________________
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html
