[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros

From: James K. Lowden
Subject: Re: [groff] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:56:57 -0400

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:03:28 +0000
Ralph Corderoy <address@hidden> wrote:

> > Of course it's a valid comparison.  Which sed or awk or shell script
> > is distributed in a stripped/compressed form?  Do they store their
> > AST somewhere, so as to avoid recompilation?  They do not.  Just as
> > with groff, every parse starts anew. 
> It seems you're not aware that groff runs the source.  It doesn't have
> an intermediate representation like those other commands I listed.
> Thus every invocation of a macro, or iteration around a loop, reads
> each character anew.

You seem to be saying there's some significance to groff's internal
representation, or lack thereof.  Why?  I doubt it makes any measurable
difference.  Parsing likely dominates performance in languages that
execute relatively few loops.  

If I'm wrong, and the lack of an internal efficient representation is
actually a dramatic drag on performance, then surely the solution lies
not in compressing macro sources, but in improving the software, so
that the benefit accrues to all, compressed and not.  


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]