Hi,
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, René Scharfe wrote:
> By the way, the more intrusive surgery required when using strbuf_expand()
> leads to even faster operation. Here my measurements of most of Paul's
> test cases (best of three runs):
>
> [...]
impressive timings. Although I wonder where the time comes from, as the
other substitutions should not be _that_ expensive.
In any case, your approach seems much more sensible, now that we have
strbuf.
> diff --git a/strbuf.h b/strbuf.h
> index cd7f295..95071d5 100644
> --- a/strbuf.h
> +++ b/strbuf.h
> @@ -102,6 +102,9 @@ static inline void strbuf_addbuf(struct strbuf *sb, struct strbuf *sb2) {
> strbuf_add(sb, sb2->buf, sb2->len);
> }
>
> +typedef void (*expand_fn_t) (struct strbuf *sb, const char *placeholder, void *context);
> +extern void strbuf_expand(struct strbuf *sb, const char *fmt, const char **placeholders, expand_fn_t fn, void *context);
I wonder if it would even faster (but maybe not half as readable) if
expand_fd_t got the placeholder_index instead of the placeholder.
Ciao,
Dscho
