On 2/2/2012 5:26 PM, Daniel James wrote:
I'm sorry I forced you to waste your time.
If I considered it a waste, I wouldn't have devoted the time -- there was no "force" involved. Things have gotten a bit heated, my fault, I apologize.
As for its customisation (cap)abilities you argued earlier in the same message that a major aspect of its customizability is that it can be replaced with something else.
You seem to be arguing against a point of view that no one holds by using my explanation for not holding that point of view.
My misunderstanding. I argued that the choice required that a user wishing some different trade-offs would need to modify or rewrite a large complex piece of code instead of a small, simple one. Your response was that they could just use a completely different, non-standard conformant, library instead of customizing the code. I'm not sure what you are now saying (really) -- that I was right and that there is no reasonable way for library users to choose different performance trade-offs? I really am not trying to attack, just to understand. Topher Cooper