| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 26 November 2011 07:50:27 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'm not sure the two are really comparable. However, looking at a |
| 4 |
>> simple string sort on 30,000 strings, I don't see it taking a |
| 5 |
>> significant amount of time at all: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> sure, it's probably not significantly higher, but i also can't see any point in |
| 8 |
> sorting the entries. we've been doing fine so far in the 10+ years of it being |
| 9 |
> unsorted. so unless Arfrever has a compelling reason, time to revert. |
| 10 |
> -mike |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I agree. My argument was that if sorting has some benefit, the cost is |
| 14 |
negligible, and it should be done properly. If the benefits of the |
| 15 |
sorting are non-existent, or if it causes problems as Ciaran pointed |
| 16 |
out, then sorting should not be done. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives