On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Robin Sommer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 15:24 -0700, you wrote: > >> (4) bloomfilter_merge(bf1: opaque of bloomfilter, bf2: opaque of >> bloomfilter) : bool > > Is this merging bf2 into bf1? Would it make sense to return a new > "opaque of bloomfilter" instead?
>From a clarity perspective I think that returning a bloom filter makes the >most sense. From a performance perspective I can see the desire to do a merge >to the left approach that Matthias is proposing. > Alternatively, we might need a > bloomfilter_copy() for the case that one wants to merge without > destroying any of the original filters. Could we just make the existing copy bif work with it? Now that I know how that's implemented internally though I'm already skeptical of the idea. :) .Seth -- Seth Hall International Computer Science Institute (Bro) because everyone has a network http://www.bro.org/ _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
