Nazri Ramliy wrote:
> 2010/7/28 Dominique Pellé <dominique.pe...@gmail.com>:
>> I send this patch again with slightly more elegant way of doing it
>> saving 3 lines of code. Sorry for the noise.
>
> From your patch:
>
> +/* Used in qsort */
> +static int cmp_str(s1, s2)
> + const void *s1;
> + const void *s2;
> +{
> + return STRCMP(*(char_u **)s1, *(char_u **)s2);
> +}
> +
> ...
> + /* Sort and remove dupes which can happen when specifying multiple
> + * directories in dirnames such as "{syntax,ftplugin,indent}"
> + */
> + qsort(*file, *num_file, sizeof(char_u *), cmp_str);
> + for (i = *num_file - 1; i > 0; i--)
> + {
> + if (STRCMP((*file)[i - 1], (*file)[i]) == 0)
> + {
> + /* Remove dupe (*file)[i] */
> + vim_free((*file)[i]);
> + if (*num_file - i - 1 > 0)
> + mch_memmove(&(*file)[i], &(*file)[i + 1],
> + (*num_file - i - 1)*sizeof(char *));
> + --*num_file;
> + }
> + }
>
> The code to achieve this (sort and remove duplicates) are already implemented
> and you can reuse it in place of the codes above.
>
> The functions misc2.c:sort_strings() and misc1.c:remove_duplicates()
> can be used as-is.
>
> You'll have to export misc1.c:remove_duplicates() though.
>
> See the sample usage in misc1.c:9455.
>
> nazri.
Thanks for having a look Nazri. I'll update the patch later today with
your comments. Some remarks though:
* yes, I can reuse sort_strings() as-is (I'll do that)
* I could also reuse remove_duplicates() but it has a slightly
different behavior since it calls fnamecmp() instead of
STRCMP() to check for dupes. I wonder whether that's
desirable here. I think it's better to use STRCMP() in my case.
Remark about remove_duplicate() in misc1.c: It'd be slightly better
if remove_duplicates(...) looped backward (as in my function) to
avoid doing more moves than necessary when there are dupes (and
to compare with 0 in exit condition which is also cheaper). Say you
have to remove dupes in this pathological case:
"x", "x", "x", ... "x", "x" (n times)
remove_duplicate() as currently implemented would do (n-1)*n/2
moves (that's O(n^2)) whereas when looping backward() as in my
function, it does 0 moves. Looping backward will always do less
moves since it avoids moving duplicates already removed.
Cheers
-- Dominique
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
