From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 19:17:06
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>>> That's interesting. I was under the impression that exactly such a
>>>> list of alternate implementation techniques would not satisfy you,
>>>> because it would in no way show that the design I chose is the best
>>> Why not? That would be the main point.
>> I don't understand. A list of alternate techniques would show that
>> none of these techniques satisfies the requirements but it doesn't
>> say anything why the current FSM implementation performs worse than
>> any of these techniques.
> You don't just list the techniques. You explain them and summarize
> their performance characteristics.
That's what I meant. This will still not show how "good" the current
design is. It will only show that the current design satisfies
requirements that other designs don't and explain the techniques (and
performance characteristics) I have chosen to satisfy the requirements.
Whether those techniques are the best performance-wise is a completely
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk