On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 09:44:46AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/10/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com>
wrote:
Not my point. You're discussing speed of
cut, I'm discussing *target*
of cut.
Eh? How can good syntax violate the principle of least surprise?
There are many possible syntacices which qualify as "good". Those
which leverage long-held reflexes of people who type on the Internet a
lot are "better". PLS is why.
> My assertion was that, for analytical purposes,
if it was practical to
> run it, we could instrument the parser to log somewhere the count of
> constructs it parses on each page, which would save grinding the entire
> database to get the statistics of which I speak. The users would grin
> it for us.
>
> Sounds good. Transclusion would alter your results, of course.
I think we probably need to skip transclusion for the purposes of this
statistic. But I see your point.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates
http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274