Tim Peters wrote: > > [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>. Ah yes, the old coffee syndrom again (or maybe just the jet-lag watching Olympia in the very early morning hours). What I meant was that I consider checking in unreadable binary goop *without* documentation and generation tools not a good idea. Now that Fredrik checked in the generators as well, everything is fine. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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