* Peter da Silva [2007-08-06 14:40]:
> Don't you hate coming across code you wrote years ago and
> wishing you had a temporal bitchslap machine so you could knock
> some sense into yourself?
That would lead us off-topic, because actually, not really. I'm
probably still an idiot in the exact same
I didn't realise you were talking specifically about *lists* of
strings represented by a successing of zero-terminated strings.
I could probably gen up a healthy rant about the hateful way people mix
up wire formats, storage formats, and internal formats, but I don't
feel up to that much hate
* Peter da Silva [2007-08-03 17:02]:
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 0:59, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >* Peter da Silva [2007-08-02 21:45]:
> >>> Please have the length of strings upfront.
>
> >>Length encoding isn't self-syncing,
>
> >Synching the length is O(1).
>
> Can you elaborate on that comment, becaus
On Aug 3, 2007, at 0:59, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva [2007-08-02 21:45]:
Please have the length of strings upfront.
Length encoding isn't self-syncing,
Synching the length is O(1).
Can you elaborate on that comment, because I don't see how you can in
principle resync a stream
On 8/3/07, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Peter da Silva [2007-08-02 21:45]:
> > > Please have the length of strings upfront.
> >
> > Length encoding isn't self-syncing,
>
> Synching the length is O(1).
>
> Not doing it makes *everything* O(n) and leaves you to deal with
> the semi-predicate problem, s
* Peter da Silva [2007-08-02 21:45]:
> > Please have the length of strings upfront.
>
> Length encoding isn't self-syncing,
Synching the length is O(1).
Not doing it makes *everything* O(n) and leaves you to deal with
the semi-predicate problem, source of lots of 'sploits and other
fun for the
