| 1 |
On 25 May 2012 08:28, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I expect that reading and validating the cache is probably not going to |
| 4 |
> be much faster than just parsing the eclasses over again. |
| 5 |
> -- |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Unless, you don't care if the cache is out-dated because the cache is |
| 8 |
optional / the syntax checking is optional, and its only made |
| 9 |
available when you generate it manually. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
And considering how fast eclasses change, I doubt you'd need to |
| 12 |
regenerate it often. Though how much time it takes to parse and stuff |
| 13 |
really needs to be properly benched, its more that there is an |
| 14 |
intermediate state that can be inspected by human eyes instead of a |
| 15 |
lot of magic going on |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Kent |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 23 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |
Archives