Re: RFC: modules for generic unordered sets and mappings

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 07/02/2010 04:01 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> > Maintenance and, secondarily, RAM cost.
>
> RAM cost? Do you think linking with a shared library with 100 modules costs
> less RAM than having 5 of these modules linked in the executable? Also, do
> you frequently run 'm4' at the same time as you view PDF files or run
> 'msgfmt'? I think, in the current situation, linking with a non-shared library
> is still perfectly fine.

I may even agree with you, but it's still a common objection that 
"gnulib does things differently, why should it?".

(BTW, I wasn't aware of the licensing of libnih).

Paolo