PROTECTED]
Subject: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
What is the fastest way to process a long string byte by byte. I want
to know if there is a faster way to do the following:
STR.VAR = Some really really long string that has lots and lots of
characters for test processing.
MAX.STR = LEN(STR.VAR
= 1.
Glen
http://picksource.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Craig Bennett
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
Glen,
Per HTTP 1.0-1.2 specifications
in the
comments. I always url-encode my non-alpha-numeric strings.
Glen
http://picksource.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Beahm
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] Processing
Glen,
Per HTTP 1.0-1.2 specifications, and are not exempt from content
encoding requirements. They are protected characters and must be treated as
such when sending content. Light bulb going off yet?
Surely you don't mean the HTTP specifications? (Which the W3 have
officially closed at
What is the fastest way to process a long string byte by byte. I want
to know if there is a faster way to do the following:
STR.VAR = Some really really long string that has lots and lots of
characters for test processing.
MAX.STR = LEN(STR.VAR)
FOR X = 1 TO MAX.STR
VAR =
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina
Sent: 15 September 2004 13:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
What is the fastest way to process a long string byte by byte. I want
to know if there is a faster way
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina
Sent: 15 September 2004 02:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
What is the fastest way to process a long string byte by byte. I want
to know if there is a faster way to do the following:
STR.VAR = Some really really long
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
You could fold the string into a dynamic array and use remove:
STR.VAR= Some really really long string that has lots and lots of
characters for test processing.
FOLDED.VAR=FOLD(STR.VAR,1); *creates dynarray of single characters
LOOP
REMOVE ACHAR
Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
Depends what you're trying to achieve I suppose. If it's for a checksum
then there are commands to do that. If it's looking for occurrences of
text then there are commands to do
DING DING DING! You win the prize for guessing the implementation!
Oh. No prize though. Only the satisfaction that you won. ;-)
Glenn
At 11:07 AM 9/15/2004, you wrote:
Using VAR = STR.VAR[X,1] is probably the fastest. If my suspicions are
correct, the C code to implement this function would
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
I'm trying to parse some very long XML code. If I do it byte by byte
this way, it is taking a very long time to parse. We
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick
Cipollina
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
I'm trying to parse some very long XML code. If I do it byte by byte
this way, it is taking a very long
Is using a sequential file out of the question? I just modified our
output browser to use sequential files, and it wasn't anywhere near as
hard as I had feared, and that had to support moving up and down through
the data. XML should be a one-way trip, making it downright simple.
This change
?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
I'm trying to parse some very long XML code. If I do it byte by byte
this way, it is taking a very long time
Reid
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 1:22 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
I don't suppose that the type of problem being solved could be delved
into a
bit more? There are a ton of string routines that I have found useful,
but
they seem to be solutions
Nick, are you sure the bottleneck isn't the storage part of your subroutine?
Stuffing large amounts of data into a dynamic array can be slow.
---
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
I've got a subroutine that takes an XML string and tries to convert it
into a dynamic array. It does it byte by byte, and I'm just looking for
a faster way to parse the XML.
Nick, someone already alluded to this but you can probably make it faster by
extracting information FIELD by FIELD
Will-
Wouldn't that cause a problem if there are quoted strings containing
or characters? That's why I went character by character in my XML
routine. As someone else pointed out, handling truly large strings
efficiently usually comes down to not loading the entire thing into
memory at
Is it not against the XML standard to have a quoted string containing
or in a tag?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Beahm
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] Processing a string
Is it not against the XML standard to have a quoted string containing
or in a tag?
You can certainly have comments like this in valid XML
!----
And processing instructions
? !-- ?
And CDATA Sections (I forget the format, but they can hold arbitrary
binary data).
So just working on
Sorry that's not correct.
Comments have to be delimited just like everything else.
I did not say you can ignore what the tag says. I only said you can use
and to find the tag. If a tag starts with ! then it requires special
processing.
Apologies Will,
I didn't mean to verbal you, just point
21 matches
Mail list logo
