Re: [CVS ci] opcode cleanup 1 - minus 177 opcodes

There is also such thing as premature "pessimization". I'm not in the
position to judge whether it is appropriate in this case, though.

Back-to-reading-mode-ly yours,
Michael


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:25:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski <dan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Thomas Seiler <t.seiler@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>  Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >>>  At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>  See also subject "Too many opcodes".
> >>>>
> >>   >> [...]
> >>   >>
> >>>  Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to be trimming ops out.
> >
> >When is the time? After another 1000 opcodes are in, which all ought to
> >be functions?
> 
> Yes. Y'know, when we start doing the optimization based on a fully
> designed and implemented engine. Anything before that's premature.
> (Shall I go dig up a half dozen or more archive references with you
> chiding me for premature optimizations?)
> 
> >  > OTOH, it won't hurt anyone and it is already in.
> >
> >That's my point.
> 
> Then your point's wrong. This patch broke a lot of my code.
> 
> You keep wanting to chop things out of the core. Stop. That's not
> your call -- it's mine, and it will be made, but not now.
> 
> Put these back.
> 
> 
> --
>                                 Dan
> 
> --------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
> Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
> dan@xxxxxxxxx                         have teddy bears and even
>                                        teddy bears get drunk
>