From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: abbreviate-file-name on Windows seems incorrect
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:01:06 -0500
Message-ID: <E1H44QM-0007Dj-UV@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <EIENLHALHGIMHGDOLMIMIECICOAA.drew.adams@oracle.com>
	<45A219D7.9030401@gnu.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168300956 31202 80.91.229.12 (9 Jan 2007 00:02:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:02:36 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: dooglus@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, stephen_leake@member.fsf.org,
	eliz@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, miles@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 09 01:02:34 2007
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1H44Rl-0004j7-Mq
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:02:33 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H44Rl-0007oj-C6
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:02:33 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H44Qu-00074K-US
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:01:41 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H44Qt-000736-Ft
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:01:39 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H44Qt-00072z-8f
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:01:39 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1H44Qq-0001np-5v; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:01:36 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>)
	id 1H44QM-0007Dj-UV; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:01:07 -0500
Original-To: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
In-reply-to: <45A219D7.9030401@gnu.org> (message from Jason Rumney on Mon, 08
	Jan 2007 10:15:51 +0000)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65024
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/65024>

    What is gained is significant performance.

Can you check whether the efficiency gain is really significant in
practice?  If it is, I agree this optimization is worth keeping.
But I am not sure that this function is called often enough to make
a significant difference.

If it is not, we might as well make things more flexible by removing
it.