On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Richard Sharpe wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Having looked at mangle_hash2, it is clear that the mangling char is hard > > coded. I am sure this is not intended. > > > > Should I fix it? > > While tridge would be a much better one to comment, I will say this: > > The new mangling scheme was designed to be very fast, and not > particulary flexible. In fact, it could be argued that the inflexibilty > is a feature - becouse changes to the mangling scheme actually have some > nasty consequenses. (8.3 names are stored by some applications etc, > hence why we have not moved to hash2 in 2.2 by default)
Oh, I agree with that, however, hard-coding ~ when lp_mangling_char() would be almost as fast, and would have the same effect in the default case, seems wrong. Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
