On 31 May 2015 at 18:57, Colomban Wendling <lists....@herbesfolles.org> wrote: > Le 31/05/2015 07:41, Lex Trotman a écrit : >> On 31 May 2015 at 11:46, Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 31 May 2015 at 08:05, Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> wrote: >>>> Am 30.05.2015 um 03:19 schrieb Matthew Brush: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just because it's such a trivial search algorithm, using strstr() is much >>>>> more simple and probably more efficient than using Scintilla's API to find >>>>> text, […] >>> >>> So its almost certainly slower than strstr(). >> >> And on my system strstr() is a builtin that can use any hardware >> support available. > > One thing that will make strstr() sound a lot less sexy is that you > probably actually want to find *words* rather than substrings.
Sure you can, just do the strstr() thing then check those for wordiness :) Meaning > that if the word under the cursor is "i", you probably don't want to > highlight all "i"s in e.g. an identifier "highlighting", but only whole > words. And while Scintilla search has the logic for this > (SCFIND_WHOLEWORD), it'd probably be annoying/redundant to re-do with > the same logic. > But yes, as much fun as imagining various premature optimising is, using the existing code first to get it working then optimising *if needed* is the real way to go. Cheers Lex > Apart that, yes, strstr() from an optimized libc like glibc will be hard > to beat without also using very smart optimization combined with use of > specialized CPU instruction sets. > > Cheers, > Colomban > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.geany.org > https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel