On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 12:02 -0700, Robin Sommer wrote: > Can we change tables so that if &default is a non-constant, the first > time one accesses a non-existing index, that slot gets assigned a > deep-copy of the &default value? The downside would be that if > somebody is relying on the current behaviour, he might access lots of > non-existing entries with the assumption that the table won't change > (i.e., he won't run into memory trouble).
What about modifying the table on writes to empty slots but not reads of empty slots? Is that feasible, or would it require too much code change? -- David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn http://david.mandelberg.org/ Fri Apr 19 15:11:51 EDT 2013
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
