It would have to do the search more than twice, it woudl have to do every
possible case combination of either the string or the RE. I suspect that
internally it just does a LOWER or UPPER on both the RE and the string.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: number of occurrences in a string.
Wouldn't it be "faster" to use a Lower() on the string rather than
REFindNoCase?
I thought that doing a NoCase does the search twice, so on long strings,
it could be slower...
Just a thought
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Pascal Peters
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Tim Blair
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Pascal Peters
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Raymond Camden
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Pascal Peters
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Pascal Peters
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Raymond Camden
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Raymond Camden
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Philip Arnold
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Raymond Camden
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Barney Boisvert
- RE: number of occurrences in a string. Pascal Peters