At 6:32 PM -0400 5/10/01, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
> >Ideally, I really wanted to just keep my own int[] to save memory and
>>less object creation... growing the int[] as required past initial
>>capacity. Doing so would use scalars and not objects... and would be
>>less overhead.
>
>Since you've made the switch to offset/count pairs, I think you've
>made the Vector vs. ArrayList point moot. I'll go over the patch
>and probably make the change you just suggested after applying it
>unless you want to take the time to do it and resubmit.
I can go ahead and switch to an int[] instead of Vector or ArrayList
(it's private, so nothing else should be affected).
I'll resubmit a new patch when I'm done and have unit tested.
I'd also like to cache the substitution string's char[] I currently
have in local scope within _parseSubs for later use in _calcSub in
order not to re-get the array.
I also left in the check for instance of String in _calcSub. If we
aren't worried about backwards compat if anyone has serialized
instances, I'd like to remove the instance check for String.
Last question.
Are static inner classes considered bad form for this project?
mark
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families Against Internet Censorship: http://www.netfamilies.org/
