On 29/11/2010 02:11, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-11-28 20:57:38 -0500, bearophobic <notb...@cave.net> said:
Stewart Gordon Wrote:
On 27/11/2010 23:04, Kagamin wrote:
bearophile Wrote:
Also, is there a way to bit-compare given memory areas at much
higher speed than element per element (I mean for arrays in
general)?
I don't know. I think you can't.
You can use memcmp, though only for utf-8 strings.
Only for utf-8 strings? Why's that? I would've thought memcmp to be
type agnostic.
Stewart.
D community is amazing cult of premature optimization fans. Any one of
you heard of canonically equivalent sequences? The integrated Unicode
support is a clusterfuck. Please do compare ASCII strings with memcmp,
but no Unicode. Where did the original poster pull this problem from,
his ass? "My system runs 100,000,000,000 instructions per second, but
this comparison of 4 letter strings uses 5 cycles too much! This is
the only problem on the way to world domination with my $500 Microsoft
Word clone!". No wait, the problems are completely imaginatory.
Comparing unicode UTF-* strings using memcmp is fine as long as what you
want to know is whether the code points are the same. If your point was
that per-code-point comparisons aren't the right way to compare Unicode
strings (in most situations), then I support this view too. Though if
that's what you wanted to say, you could have made your point clearer.
Why are people still replying to nameless trolls? There has been several
cases of that in recent threads. :/
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
