Subject: Re: profile results for new UT_* implementations?
From: Aaron Lehmann (aaronl@vitelus.com)
Date: Wed Jun 20 2001 - 06:18:58 CDT
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Joaqu?n Cuenca Abela wrote:
> if you don't know the "1.0in; " value at the same time than
> "margin-left: ", then it can be a perfectly valid example
No, I was just hoping that for this particular example the statements
were separated by a conditional or something. Otherwise it would be
similar to:
write(1, "H", 1);
write(1, "e", 1);
write(1, "l", 1);
write(1, "l", 1);
write(1, "o", 1);
write(1, " ", 1);
write(1, "W", 1);
write(1, "o", 1);
write(1, "r", 1);
write(1, "l", 1);
write(1, "d", 1);
write(1, "\n", 1);
Well not quite so bad, but you get my point :).
> (maybe you're
> thinking that it will be too slow... with current UT_String
> implementation probably the second += will not need any reallocation)
This is very good. But see above :).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Jun 20 2001 - 06:21:41 CDT