From: Doug McIlroy <doug@cs.dartmouth.edu>
To: tuhs@tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:21:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201903152121.x2FLLrwW084445@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> (raw)
>> But sed, awk, perl, python, ... lex and parse once into an AST or
>> bytecode, removing the recurring cost of comments, etc. that impact
>> groff. So I don't think it's an even comparison.
>
> 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.
Comments inside of a macro definition get scanned each time it's called.
This justifies the first paragraph above.
In the wild, almost all comments occur outside macro definitions.
This justifies the second.
Thus comments are harmless in practice.
Doug
reply other threads:[~2019-03-15 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201903152121.x2FLLrwW084445@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU \
--to=doug@cs.dartmouth.edu \
--cc=tuhs@tuhs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).