Geoff Hutchison wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think to remember that there is a chapter on this subject in Managing > > Gigabytes. I did not bring the book with me. Could you check that Geoff, > > please ? > > I didn't find anything obviously on this topic. However, if you're > performing Huffman compression on characters only, I can't imagine it > would be a big problem. You'd just have to be careful about ensuring the > Huffman codes were in sorted order. Since we're suggesting static > Huffman codes based on assumptions of the underlying character > frequencies, I don't think this is a big restriction. > I still don't see why the alphabetic sorting order needs to be preserved. Prefix matching can be done almost trivially using a custom compare function that knows how many bits to compare. Why would the alphabetical order of the matches matter? -- Andrew Scherpbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Contigo Software <http://www.contigo.com/>
begin:vcard n:Scherpbier;Andrew tel;fax:+1 619-278-2502 tel;work:+1 619-278-2329 x115 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.contigo.com/ org:Contigo Software<br><img src="http://www.contigo.com/gifs/logo.gif">;Research & Development version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Vice President R&D note:<a href="http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=8334+Clairemont+Mesa+Blvd.&csz=San+Diego%2C+CA+92111&Get+Map=Get+Map">Yahoo Map</a> adr;quoted-printable:;;8334 Clairemont Mesa Blvd.=0D=0ASuite 204;San Diego;CA;92111;USA x-mozilla-cpt:;26848 fn:Andrew Scherpbier end:vcard
