There is also such thing as premature "pessimization". I'm not in the position to judge whether it is appropriate in this case, though.
Back-to-reading-mode-ly yours, Michael On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:25:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >Thomas Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Dan Sugalski wrote: > >>> At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >>> > >>>> See also subject "Too many opcodes". > >>>> > >> >> [...] > >> >> > >>> Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to be trimming ops out. > > > >When is the time? After another 1000 opcodes are in, which all ought to > >be functions? > > Yes. Y'know, when we start doing the optimization based on a fully > designed and implemented engine. Anything before that's premature. > (Shall I go dig up a half dozen or more archive references with you > chiding me for premature optimizations?) > > > > OTOH, it won't hurt anyone and it is already in. > > > >That's my point. > > Then your point's wrong. This patch broke a lot of my code. > > You keep wanting to chop things out of the core. Stop. That's not > your call -- it's mine, and it will be made, but not now. > > Put these back. > > > -- > Dan > > --------------------------------------it's like this------------------- > Dan Sugalski even samurai > [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even > teddy bears get drunk >
