[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ? |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:05:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Devon Schudy <address@hidden> writes:
> Keith OHara wrote:
>> the pure-estimate and unpure-final versions of a function
> [...]
>> The word 'pure' might have too much a connotation as 'good'. Maybe we
>> should rename 'pure' ->
>> 'shitty_hack_estimate_because_I_am_unable_to_order_layout_decisions_better_please_forgive_me'
>
> Oh, so *that's* what all the 'pure' stuff is about! I was wondering.
> The CG says it's just functional purity, but that obviously isn't the
> whole story. Renaming them to something like 'estimate' would be less
> confusing. ('Raw' is opaque to me, but 'estimate' is clear. Or are
> they really ideals instead of estimates?)
>
> Is everything with 'pure' in its name for estimates, or are some of
> them just functions that happen to be pure, or that need to be pure
> for some other reason?
>
> Unpure-pure-container is also confusing. There's an explanatory
> comment at the top of unpure-pure-container.cc, but it's unfinished:
> “Used for rerouting a function of (grob start end) to one of (grob)”.
That's just for the special use case where only a single callback is
placed in the container. Then a proxy function is created that throws
the extra arguments away.
> Perhaps it should be named after its purpose rather than its
> implementation: something like 'estimator', 'with-estimator',
> 'estimable', 'two-phase-layout-function'?
There were a few proposals already, most of them I like better than
these.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, (continued)
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Trevor Daniels, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Devon Schudy, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Francisco Vila, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/10