On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:11:51PM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> Something fundamentally fucks up in with your patch or there is again
> some typo that I made?
Something fundamental seems to be wrong. I did not look how the matching
is actually done.
Marko
On 17.01.2010 11:20, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
Hi Felix,
Thank you for testing my patch. In any case, I will try to figure out
what caused the size difference for me. Even if the patch does not seem
to bring much CPU-wise, the compact notation could be useful in some cases.
But as your example sho
Hi Felix,
Thank you for testing my patch. In any case, I will try to figure out
what caused the size difference for me. Even if the patch does not seem
to bring much CPU-wise, the compact notation could be useful in some cases.
But as your example shows, the downside of the compactness would be
On 16.01.2010 21:25, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
Hi Felix,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 09:02:05PM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
On 16.01.2010 20:59, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
+natural ~ 'wetland\|marsh\|mud' [0x51 resolution 20]
Is there a performance increase (or maybe memory usage decrea
Hi Felix,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 09:02:05PM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> On 16.01.2010 20:59, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> > +natural ~ 'wetland\|marsh\|mud' [0x51 resolution 20]
> >
> Is there a performance increase (or maybe memory usage decrease) vs:
> natural=wetland | natural=marsh | na
On 16.01.2010 20:59, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> +natural ~ 'wetland\|marsh\|mud' [0x51 resolution 20]
>
Is there a performance increase (or maybe memory usage decrease) vs:
natural=wetland | natural=marsh | natural=mud [0x51 resolution 20]
___
mkg
