Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] MyFirstObjectWalk: fix description for counting omitted objects

Dirk Gouders [off-list ref] writes:

Oh yes, you are right (as far as I can say): I would change this to
something like:

"Asking for this list of filtered objects may cause performance
implications, however, because in this case, despite filtering objects,
the possibly much larger set of all reachable objects must be processed
in order to populate that list."

Better, but the verb "cause" applied to "performance implications"
feels funny.  It may "have" implications.  Alternatively, it may
"cause" degradations.  As implications can be both positive or
negative, it would be better to say "cause performancedegradations"
when you know if it is negative.

(Later in the document, it is suggested to do timing with the two
versions, which kind of follows up on the performance impact that is
focused on, here.  So, this doesn't remain an unresolved detail.)

Great.

Thanks.