On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
(for example, try using GIMP's file open dialog in a directory
containing 10000+ files - I ended up having to kill GIMP from the
That sounds like an argument against the "one big list" interface. I
wonder if a glob would similarly barf,
There's a big difference between the two, just like there can be a big
difference in speed between "ls" and "ls -l" : the latter has to do a
lstat() on *every* filename, and the way this is traditionally stored in
Unix filesystems, it has to read lots of clusters from disk, whereas if
you don't do the lstat() part, you are reading something that is usually a
lot less fragmented.
because globbing is one big operation, then you iterate thru it.
Globbing could be done incrementally as well. It depends on the
implementation of glob being used. But it's usually one big operation.
So representing that as a list isn't so far off. But maybe globbing is
quite efficient... I don't know I haven't tested it tho.
Globbing doesn't need to do lstat(). neither does [folder_list].
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
