portindex ignores (filters out) unchanged port

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:07 PM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday December 28 2015 15:42:46 Rainer Müller wrote:
>> I don't understand your argument at all. In a list of ports that all
>> have the same prefix it is as easy to find something alphabetically as
>> it is in a list without the prefix.
> 
> No it isn't, unless you're a computer that isn't subject to the usual cognitive processes biological systems are governed by.
> It's about "not being able to see the forest through all the trees" and "finding a needle in a haystack" .

If you're going to make a statement about usability like that, it would be helpful if you referenced a study (or more clearly indicated that it's just your opinion instead of stating it as a fact).

> Assuming the portfile is parsed when it has to be (re)indexed,

um?

Rainer just wrote: "To decide wether we need to reindex we need the port's name to look it up in the index. The only way to get the name from the Portfile is to run the Tcl interpreter on the Portfile. But parsing the Portfile is actually the expensive step we want to avoid with this logic."

-- 
Daniel J. Luke                                                                   
+========================================================+ 
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |                          
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |                          
+========================================================+ 
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                          
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                          
+========================================================+