On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:35:41PM +0200, Peter Gibbs wrote: > I would prefer this to be done via an iterator, as it would also solve > the skip_backward problems with DBCS encoding. Something like:
> For the hash_utf8 benchmark with the current code I get numbers like: > 3.758691 > 5.535916 > > With the above iterator code (and the UTF8 decode_and_advance function > implemented) I get: > 3.757812 > 4.844776 > > Does anybody think this is worth implementing? Well, I like the smaller numbers. (Assuming that smaller numbers are good) But I've no idea if using an iterator breaks some or other design rule. Nicholas Clark
