On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:25:11AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > > But do remember that it doesn't come up at all unless you're > > using %X/~X, so there's no harm to performance in the > > immediate term. The only damage (if you're not asking for > > it) is in code purity. > > Well, my concern is that we're having a feature here that will > make mutt unexpectedly sluggish without users having any reason > to expect this to happen. It seems to me that such a concern should be solved quite easily by turning the feature off by default (which I believe it already is), and documenting that it is computationally expensive in the manual. If people genuinely want the feature, I personally am of the opinion that it should not be rejected solely because it's expensive, so long as it does not make mutt (or whatever program of the day) slow for all users who don't care about that feature; clearly the people who want it are willing to wait for it... Also -- without looking at the problem, admittedly -- it seems like header caching (of the mime parts) could help a lot here... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgpKUjp0b969A.pgp
Description: PGP signature