"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Then compilers like gcc use internally behind the scenes malloc() as
| part of their implementation of the 'builtin' operator new.
This is not visible to us, so we don't really care.
| To be avoided. But I remember several huuuge routines free()ing and
| 'delete'ing heavily, where splitting into static inline fns - that
| would disappear after optimizing - with local pointers could do the
| work on the stack and be better maintainable and less bug-prone.
I am a little curious why you think that using inline funcs can help
us not using heap mem.
| >I will try to spell out my thoughs on figinset.C later, but in short:
| > Ditch It! De-couple figinset and insetfig. transformation of
| > eps (or others) into pixmap can be done by external programs.
|
| aka toolkits, I suppose.
if you consider gs a toolkit I suppose.
| >| Moreover I'd like to repeat my older suggestion: Please take your nice
| >| summaries (like this one!) out of this mass-grave of letters (aka mail
| >| archive) and resurrect them on-line. Or you could hack together a
| >| bsd-like TOUR text, introducing some concepts employed in the sources.
| >| (Don't try to make the texts perfect; it's impossible anyway ;)
| >
| >A nice task for you :-)
|
| No problem to grab and forward summaries I can find.
|
| >I'll give you write access to the cvs
| >repository if you do this. (at least that part of the repository)
|
| hmm... How can this save any work for anybody, compared with committing
| a simple text via list? Do you really want to start to manage a mess of
| accounts, sub-accounts, limited sub-accounts while re-organizing cvs?
| Things will inevitably go wrong and users will get confused. Better
| forget this idea ;-).
If we are to have a document like that (or several) we need someone to
maintain them. And I am not going to do that.
And I have finished the cvs re-organizing. And we are now using access
controll list to limit access to the different modules (and
sub-modules)
| >You can even hunt in the mailing list archives to see if there has
| >been any other nice mails that could go into a document like that.
|
| The 'hunter' should preferably be the one who has at least a vague idea
| that there was something interesting written about 'foo', so he would
| know he has to search for 'foo': The author himself! We should just
| 'help' him not to 'bury' things he has invested work in.
So we should ask everybody that has ever posted on the list to see if
they ever wrote anything interesting about foo? :-)
Lgb
