Bruno Medeiros Wrote: > On 29/11/2010 02:11, Michel Fortin wrote: > > On 2010-11-28 20:57:38 -0500, bearophobic <notb...@cave.net> said: > > > >> Stewart Gordon Wrote: > >> > >>> On 27/11/2010 23:04, Kagamin wrote: > >>>> bearophile Wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Also, is there a way to bit-compare given memory areas at much > >>>>>> higher speed than element per element (I mean for arrays in > >>>>>> general)? > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know. I think you can't. > >>>> > >>>> You can use memcmp, though only for utf-8 strings. > >>> > >>> Only for utf-8 strings? Why's that? I would've thought memcmp to be > >>> type agnostic. > >>> > >>> Stewart. > >> > >> D community is amazing cult of premature optimization fans. Any one of > >> you heard of canonically equivalent sequences? The integrated Unicode > >> support is a clusterfuck. Please do compare ASCII strings with memcmp, > >> but no Unicode. Where did the original poster pull this problem from, > >> his ass? "My system runs 100,000,000,000 instructions per second, but > >> this comparison of 4 letter strings uses 5 cycles too much! This is > >> the only problem on the way to world domination with my $500 Microsoft > >> Word clone!". No wait, the problems are completely imaginatory. > > > > Comparing unicode UTF-* strings using memcmp is fine as long as what you > > want to know is whether the code points are the same. If your point was > > that per-code-point comparisons aren't the right way to compare Unicode > > strings (in most situations), then I support this view too. Though if > > that's what you wanted to say, you could have made your point clearer. > > > > > > Why are people still replying to nameless trolls? There has been several > cases of that in recent threads. :/
Trololol. Maybe they're a bit dumb, my brother. If they some day become smarter, they'll stop using D. They see how much shit it is. I miss my wife. Oh god.... bring back my life! Bring me my.. sandwich!
