On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> wrote:
> @@ -39,10 +39,8 @@ unescape(char *s)
> off += m - i - 1;
> for (--m, q = 0, factor = 1; m > i + 1; m--) {
> - if (s[m] >= '0' && s[m] <= '9')
> - q += (s[m] - '0') * factor;
> - else if (s[m] >= 'A' && s[m] <= 'F')
> - q += ((s[m] - 'A') + 10) * factor;
> - else if (s[m] >= 'a' && s[m] <= 'f')
> - q += ((s[m] - 'a') + 10) * factor;
> + if (isdigit(s[m]))
> + q += (s[m] & 15) * factor;
> + else
> + q += ((s[m] & 15) + 9) * factor;
> factor *= 16;
> }
> --
> 2.11.0
>
>
I think this would be clearer as:
if (isdigit(s[m]))
q += (s[m] - '0') * factor;
else
q += (tolower(s[m]) - 'a' + 10) * factor;
But it is just a personal style preference. Or, if we do keep the bit
twiddling, I highly recommend using hex instead of decimal, e.g. (s[m]
& 0xf).
Thoughts?
