Chris Bowditch wrote:
Clifton Craig wrote:
<snip/>
J,
So the only time tables are realeased are at the end of a page
sequence? That would explain my dilemma. Even though I use multiple
smaller tables per row instead of one big table all of the smaller
tables are held until the page sequence ends? That sux.
Non constructive comments are *not* welcome. You must realise that the
possibility of back tracking makes the task of knowing when to release
objects very tricky. If you think you are up to the challenge of
writing algorithms to do layout more efficiently then please share
them. Otherwise refrain from making such negative comments.
Chris
I disagree with you, Chris, there was nothing wrong with Clifton's
comments. He was just giving his legitimate opinions on the matter.
Also, Chris, for your statement "if you think you are up to the
challenge of writing algorithms to do layout more efficiently then
please share them", that is quite remarkable coming from you.
I *was* up to the challenge of trying to attain better algorithms, and
refine what we had to make sure everything was being done efficiently.
Jeremias disparaged these efforts by calling this relatively unimportant
"code guilding"[1] at the time, and you furthered that by declaring that
I didn't care whether or not people use FOP[2], just because algorithm
comprehension and refinement was my emphasis then.
When you see to it that when someone who discusses algorithm refinement
on FOP-DEV is to be smeared with not caring about whether or not people
use FOP, do you not see the contradiction in then requesting people to
share their ideas to refine FOP? Been there, done that with you.
Glen
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=111730351322137&w=2
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=111753251927198&w=2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
