That's still sequential, and not random access.
-Andrei
On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:29 PM, Stefan Walk wrote:
I think the most common usage would be grabbing one or a few
characters and then going to do something else... if that happens
alot, it will look more like like "random" string access than
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The real test however would be random character access, rather then
sequential scans from start to end :-).
How often do you access random characters in a string vs. sequential
scans? Which is the more likely scenari
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The real test however would be random character access, rather then
sequential scans from start to end :-).
How often do you access random characters in a string vs. sequential
scans? Which is the more likely scenario in PHP scripts? I th
Andrei,
You may see a better performance using the [] if you change your test
code to:
for ($x = 0; $x < 1; $x++) {
$i = 0; while (isset($a[$i])) { $c = $a[$i++]; }
}
The real test however would be random character access, rather then
sequential scans from start to end :-).
Ilia
A
For yet another comparison, the [] operator test under PHP 4 gives
7.24410 s.
- Andrei
On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
You probably saw that I have committed initial implementation of
TextIterator. The impetus for this is that direct indexing of Unicode
strings via [] oper
You probably saw that I have committed initial implementation of
TextIterator. The impetus for this is that direct indexing of Unicode
strings via [] operator is slow, very slow, at least currently. The
reason is that [] cannot simply perform random-offset indexing into
UCHar* strings. It needs
