On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 02:28 +0530, Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
>
> out of curiosity, the first patch reads through the list
> and this patch, return if any one of the token is equal, anf not any
> following it.
>
> Would the below not be better ?
>
> for (i = 0; i < tokens_len; i ++)
>
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Toshok wrote:
> static void
> free_token (gchar *token)
> {
> gint i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < tokens_len; i ++)
> if (tokens[i] == token)
> return;
>
> g_free (token);
> }
ps. Maybe for real efficiency yo
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 17:06 -0400, Chris Toshok wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 02:28 +0530, Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
> >
> > out of curiosity, the first patch reads through the list
> > and this patch, return if any one of the token is equal, anf not any
> > following it.
> >
> > Would the below n
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 02:27 +0530, Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Toshok wrote:
> > No opinion on the rest of the patch, but this:
> >
> > > +static void
> > > +free_token (gchar *token)
> > > +{
> > > + gint i=0;
> > > + gboolean no=FALSE;
> > > +
>
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Toshok wrote:
> No opinion on the rest of the patch, but this:
>
> > +static void
> > +free_token (gchar *token)
> > +{
> > + gint i=0;
> > + gboolean no=FALSE;
> > +
> > + for (i=0; (i < tokens_len); i++)
> > + {
> > +
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Toshok wrote:
> No opinion on the rest of the patch, but this:
> static void
> free_token (gchar *token)
> {
> gint i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < tokens_len; i ++)
> if (tokens[i] == token)
> return;
>
> g_fr
No opinion on the rest of the patch, but this:
> +static void
> +free_token (gchar *token)
> +{
> + gint i=0;
> + gboolean no=FALSE;
> +
> + for (i=0; (i < tokens_len); i++)
> + {
> + if (tokens[i] == token)
> + no = TRUE;
> + }
> +
