RE: Idea for reducing disk IO on tagging operations

[Jim.Hyslop]

[top posting as a courtesy for Doug]

I haven't examined the patch, so I don't know how closely the implementation
matches the proposal, but if I understand the proposed changes, whitespace
is still insignificant, there's just more of it added as a buffer, as an
optimization to improve speed when applying tags. If the implementation is
carried out correctly, then the RCS file will still be compatible with other
RCS-compatible software, some of which could legitimately strip out the
extra whitespace (unless the general practise is to leave whitespace alone).

My only concern around this patch is to make sure robustness has not been
adversely affected. I don't know enough about third-party add-ons to know
for sure, or to comment on their use. 

I also like the fact that the change is optional, so that it can be disabled
if any particular platform is incompatible with the changes.

Doug Lee wrote:
> I have reservations about any system that makes whitespace significant
> in a text file.  I can make an exception for indent levels, as used by
> Python, because these are visible and errors are obvious without
> resorting to odd tactics like hex editors, vi's :list command, etc.
> 
> I say I expect to be shot down because, of course, the "proper" theory
> is that all in a CVS file is opaque and should not be depended upon by
> CVS users.

-- 
Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. ( http://www.leitch.com )
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal ( http://www.cuj.com/experts )