On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Del wrote: >George Greer wrote: >> >> Who thinks the global buffers (buf, buf1, buf2, arg) need to go? >> Who wants to keep them? >> and why? > >Not much of a design person myself, but I think they should stay. I do >think (after running into some problems with global buffers) that >functions that need buffers should use something other than buf defined >locally. Differentiate the global and local buffers, it is too confusing >to determine if your using a local or global. You mean local functions not shadow the global names? As in make their own names not be 'buf'? >If I am miss-understanding what there true purposes is, please >let me know :) Their true purpose was to avoid having to define your own buffers for every function since everything seemed to need some sort of buffer to work with. The theory was that it would be faster on the programmer and computer if it kept the 32 kilobytes worth of 4 buffers always allocated instead of created on demand. So far I'm hearing for/against from various people but not a lot of "why" yet. -- George Greer greerga@circlemud.org -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST