From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56366 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jesper Harder Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: ELisp-based uncompface Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:53:57 +0100 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1076565383 6303 80.91.224.253 (12 Feb 2004 05:56:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tak@kmc.gr.jp Original-X-From: ding-owner+M4906@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Feb 12 06:56:14 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ar9pe-00050S-00 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:56:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1Ar9p8-0008QZ-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:55:42 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221] ident=postfix) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1Ar9p4-0008QU-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:55:38 -0600 Original-Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com (smtp-send.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.143]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EF53A0039 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:55:37 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from [195.249.83.1] harder@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [195.249.83.1] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with NetMail SMTP Agent $Revision: 3.56 $ on Novell NetWare via secured & encrypted transport (TLS); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:55:37 -0700 Original-To: ding@gnus.org Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org, tak@kmc.gr.jp In-Reply-To: (Katsumi Yamaoka's message of "Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:21:32 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:56366 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:56366 Katsumi Yamaoka writes: > It's fast enough for me too, however I heard it takes seconds > per image in the slow machine. It takes around 0.3 s (versus 0.03 s for the external decoder) on my 233 MHz pentium box, which I think is a rather low-end machine by today's standards. It's not used in a loop, so don't think many will notice any difference even on a slow machine.