[Tim] >> Previous objections to compression were, as far as I could >> tell, based on fear of elaborate schemes that rendered the code >> unreadable and the access code excruciating. But if we can get >> more than a factor of 3 with little work and one new uniform >> indirection, do people still object? [M.-A. Lemburg] > Oh, there was no fear about making the code unreadable... > Christian and Fredrik were both working on smart schemes. > My only objection about these was missing documentation > and generation tools -- vast tables of completely random > looking byte data are unreadable ;-) OK, you weren't afraid of making the code unreadable, but you did object to making it unreadable. Got it <wink>. My own view is that the C data table source code "should be" generated by a straightforward Python program chewing over the unicode.org data files. But since that's the correct view, I'm sure it's yours too. >> If nobody objects by the end of today, I intend to do it. > +1 from here. /F and I talked about it offline. We'll do *something* before the day is done, and I suspect everyone will be happy. Waiting for a superb scheme has thus far stopped us from making any improvements at all, and at this late point a Big Crude Yet Delicate Hammer is looking mighty attractive. petitely y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4