From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Inefficient code in reftex-index.el Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:46:17 +0200 Message-ID: References: <85slzv7j87.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <858y1n2g75.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85oeai1pwq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1118155890 28560 80.91.229.2 (7 Jun 2005 14:51:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dominik@science.uva.nl, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 07 16:51:28 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DffM3-0004ks-Ry for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:47:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DffSa-0005P0-Qv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:53:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DffQI-0004Jn-2k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:51:22 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DffQE-0004IQ-KU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:51:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DffQD-0004F1-Iy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:51:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.235] (helo=pfepa.post.tele.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DffOQ-0001ig-PD; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:49:26 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (unknown [80.165.4.124]) by pfepa.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 44AB847FE3C; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:45:55 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:28:43 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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:38260 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:38260 Richard Stallman writes: > > There is no other interface into the number of accessible match > > strings (which might be nil) rather than > > (/ (length (match-data t)) 2). > > That's still pretty inefficient -- I suggest that we introduce a new > function `match-count' to return that number. > > Is there sufficient use for this function to justify introducing it? > I think that most cases where this would be used, the code would > then proceed to call match-data. I don't know. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk