At 12:21 PM 3/2/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
>I believe we should use low bits for tagging. It will make switch
>case much faster.
That's pretty much what I intended. The only reason not to have them as the
low bits is if there's some other field that uses multiple bits, and
optimizing for th
I believe we should use low bits for tagging. It will make switch
case much faster.
If you still emphasize on speed, we can make
0x05 => UTF-8
0x06 => UTF-16
0x07 => UTF-32
#define IS_UTF_ANY(a) \
(((a)->flags & 0x07) >= UTF-8)
However, I don't believe it is needed.
Hong
> If your inter
If your interest is in speed alone, then adding UTF_16 might offer options as
well:
FORMAT (enc_flags):
7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0
x x 0 0 1 x x x = UTF_8
x x 0 1 0 x x x = UTF_16
x x 1 0 0 x x x = UTF_32
then:
#define UTF 56
utf_encoding = UTF & enc_flags;
if( utf_encoding ) {
cout << "String is UTF_"
At 07:12 PM 3/2/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:01:35PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:01 PM 3/2/2001 -0500, wiz wrote:
> > > > =item BINARY (0)
> > > > =item ASCII (1)
> > > > =item EBCDIC (2)
> > > > =item UTF_8 (3)
> > > > =item UTF_32 (4)
> > > > =item NATIV
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:01:35PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:01 PM 3/2/2001 -0500, wiz wrote:
> > > =item BINARY (0)
> > > =item ASCII (1)
> > > =item EBCDIC (2)
> > > =item UTF_8 (3)
> > > =item UTF_32 (4)
> > > =item NATIVE_1 (5) through NATIVE_3 (7)
> >
> >A little more complex, but wh
At 02:01 PM 3/2/2001 -0500, wiz wrote:
> > =item BINARY (0)
> > =item ASCII (1)
> > =item EBCDIC (2)
> > =item UTF_8 (3)
> > =item UTF_32 (4)
> > =item NATIVE_1 (5) through NATIVE_3 (7)
>
>A little more complex, but why not use bits 3-7 as actual flags:
>7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0
>0 0 0 0 1 x x x = UTF && U
> =item BINARY (0)
> =item ASCII (1)
> =item EBCDIC (2)
> =item UTF_8 (3)
> =item UTF_32 (4)
> =item NATIVE_1 (5) through NATIVE_3 (7)
A little more complex, but why not use bits 3-7 as actual flags:
7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0
0 0 0 0 1 x x x = UTF && UTF_8
0 0 0 1 1 x x x = UTF && UTF_32
x x 1 0 1 x x x =
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:31 AM 3/2/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > > Integer data types are generically referred to as Cs. There is an
> > > C typedef that is guaranteed to hold any integer type.
> >
> The intention is that if you need to deal with integers in an abstrac
At 10:31 AM 3/2/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > Integer data types are generically referred to as Cs. There is an
> > C typedef that is guaranteed to hold any integer type.
>
>Does such thing exist? Unless it is BIGINT.
I'm confused here, looks like you're missing some words from those sentence
> Integer data types are generically referred to as Cs. There is an
> C typedef that is guaranteed to hold any integer type.
Does such thing exist? Unless it is BIGINT.
> Should we scrap the buffer pointer and just tack the buffer on the end
> of the structure? Saves a level of indirection, but
10 matches
Mail list logo
