X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2552" "Thu" "13" "August" "1998" "09:56:53" "+0200" "Bernd Raichle" "raichle@INFORMATIK.UNI-STUTTGART.DE" nil "56" "Re: Modules" "^Date:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA21327; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:57:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.313A8F4A@listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 9:57:06 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 395001 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:57:01 +0200 Received: from ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.211.1]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA07954 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:56:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by isidor.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:56:55 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199806271853.UAA29351@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.51 under Emacs 19.34.1 Message-ID: <13778.40005.889304.525595@isidor> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:56:53 +0200 From: Bernd Raichle Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Modules Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2675 On Wed, 12 August 1998 21:49:41 +0200, Martin Schroeder writes: > In <199806271853.UAA29351@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Frank Mittelbach writes: > >b) will be drastic: a current LaTeX format (without any packages > >loaded) uses about 51088 words of memory before begin document; if the > >average word length in commands is 10 (which is far too low with a > >consequent implemented module concept) then this gets basically blown > >to 500000 which is twice the amount of main mem [...] Frank, either I misunderstand your ``word'' or you are wrong with this analysis. A control sequence is one token and will use exactly the same amount of TeX's ``main memory'' independent on the length of its name. The names of control sequences are put in TeX's ``string pool'', thus the string pool will grow if the lengths of control sequence's name will be enlarged in a module concept. > > that i have available > >on this machine for everything. i just looked: when we compiled the > >Companion the log file showed 208957 words of memory out of 262141 > >try to imagine to what size this would grow. ... which had other reasons (a bunch of macro definitions/packages, many and complex box constructions, large and detailed (PicTeX?) figures etc.), hadn't it? > I just looked: emTeX has an hTeX version where main memory can be configured > to be between 2097152 (2^21) and 4194304 (2^22). And I don't think there's a > limit in TeX to make it even bigger if needed. :-) There are limits for TeX's main memory size, for a ``bigTeX'' version with double-sized mem words it's upto 2^32, which should be fairly enough for the next years. ;-) > But I agree that this should be avoided -- but not a taboo. IMHO a module concept will be a good idea, but the extended use of the string pool because of a long common csname prefix (e.g. \contributed/supported/...) should be avoided. String pool space is cheap (one byte for each character) in comparison to a main memory word (4 resp. 8 bytes for each word = token in a token list, hlist character node etc.), nonetheless it should be used reasonable. Just my $0.02. Best wishes, -bernd member of the e-TeX team _____________________________________________________________________ Bernd Raichle "Le langage est source Autor des `german.sty' (aktuell: v2.5e) de malentendus" (A. de Saint-Exupery)