>> Expensive in cycles or memory? And in what version? Much >> optimization has been done, and i've yet to notice trouble in 1.6+ (at >> least compared to previous). > > Sorry, should have stated the version: 1.6.2
<pokes around a bit /> <sigh /> Scratch that: 1.5 Sorry. Ignore. No problems here. <trots off to upgrade /> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
