"Rob Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2008/7/23 Dan Hipschman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> This isn't the most efficient implementation, but it works, and it should >> not be difficult to tweak. Hence, I'd rather get this version in and add >> the optimizations one at a time, in little patches. "Get it working >> first..." > > Yes, I think you're right. I don't think it will be too hard to change > the architecture of this to that of my suggestions.
Actually I think the code will be much simpler with a sorted timer list, so I'd suggest to start with that. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
