[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (techy) Code specs?
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: (techy) Code specs?
- From: Bek Oberin <gossamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:36:21 +1100
- In-reply-to: <19981115231823.5673.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>; from Mark-Jason Dominus on Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 06:18:23PM -0500
- References: <19981116085640.A6106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <19981115231823.5673.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> > Just for ease of use, basically. It means you can tell by
> > looking if it's "our" function or "not our" function.
> Well, this ease-of-use has a tradeoff. When you look at a function
> call, you know right away whether it's `our' function or `not our'
> function, and that might be a benefit. But the downside is that we
> have to keep that information up to date, and that takes time and
> energy. So the question is, is the time saved by having the
> information available going to offset the time spent annotating the
> function calls properly?
I don't see there's any "up to date" stuff going to happen though.
Curses isn't suddenly going to be imported, and vice versa, is it?
So the only time it takes energy is when you write stuff, and at
that point you probably know.
*thinks about it*
: gossamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.tertius.net.au/~gossamer/
: Saying, "click here" is like saying, "Hi, dummy! Did you know
: that you are using a COMPUTER!?!?!?" -- Dianne Wilson