Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 00:25:27 +0100: > I am now considering to abandon the tokens-approach, for the following > reasons: ... > So, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm probably going to > stop with the token approach. Because of 2), I don't think it's worth > it to spend the effort needed for 1), especially because the > byte-based approach already works. >
In other words, you're saying that the token-based approach: (b) won't be as fast as the bytes-based approach can be, and (a) requires much effort to be spent on implementing the reverse reading of tokens? (i.e., a backwards gets()) > Any thoughts? > -tokens/BRANCH-README mentions one of the advantages of the tokens approach being that the comparison is done only after whitespace and newlines have been canonicalized (if -x-w or -x--ignore-eol-style is in effect). IIRC, the -bytes approach doesn't currently take advantage of these -x flags? What is the practical effect of the fact the -bytes approach doesn't take advantage of these flags? If a file (with a moderately long history) has had all its newlines changed in rN, then I assume that your -bytes optimizations will speed up all the diffs that 'blame' performs on that file, except for the single diff between rN and its predecessor?
