On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:53:08AM +0200, A. Pagaltzis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I've taken care to ensure that the rewritten function works > *exactly* like the original. It is consistently faster even when > using arrays (by about 145% on my machine) and always degrades
This sounds great. I don't see a patch, though. How did you make sure that it works *exactly* like the original? Did you write tests for it? Can we turn those tests in .t files? xoa -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
