On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 at 19:46:16 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> btw:
>
> ++ for (i = 0; s[i] != '\0'; i++) {
>
> is there a reason that isn't using strlen(s)?
A naive implementation with strlen() would be O(n**2), because the strlen()
would be recalculated on each loop iteration. It could be precomputed
and cached in a variable, but that would fully iterate the string twice;
it isn't clear to me how that would be better than the implementation in
the proposed patch.
S
