On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Steve Fink wrote:
> >>... ($x eq $y) ... couldn't this be
> >>done as another string vtable entry instead of being specific to
> >>hash_compare?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, that'd be a better way to do it. Add a string_equal function to
> > string.c and do the magic there instead.
>
> Good point. Its for sure worth. But the compare inside the hash can and
> should be optimized further. When there is a hash-value collision, the
> string_compare is called repeatedly. So a necessary string transcoding
> should be done before.
You're going to run into problems no matter what you do, and as
transcoding could happen with each comparison arguably you need to make a
local copy of the string for each comparison, as otherwise you run the
risk of significant data loss as a sring gets transcoded back and forth
across a lossy boundary.
Regardless, I think at least a single string copy with comparison against
that copy within the hash functions is the only way to get correct
results.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
