On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 09:44:46AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/10/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@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