On 11/01/2005 02:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[..cut..] > > Certainly strncmp is quicker, since strncasecmp does an auto > tolower on each char. But we are doing that in both cases, > whether we're tolower'ing the string first, or whether we're > doing it at comparison time. So we're not saving anything > really there. Yes, but lowering explicitly is done *outside* the for loop. strncasecmp is done *inside* the for loop. So we do this via strncasecmp multiple times on the same data. Regards Rüdiger
