Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't like pieces of code that go: > > strcpy(foo, bar1); > strcat(foo, bar2); > strcat(foo, bar3); > strcat(foo, bar4); > strcat(foo, bar5); > strcat(foo, bar6); > > It's really inefficient: the cost increases quadratically with the size > of the resulting string.
Well, no, the cost is linear. It would only be quadratic if the number of strcat calls depended on the length of the string. > It's more efficient to do: > > sprintf(foo, "%s%s%s%s%s%s", bar1,bar2,bar3,bar4,bar5,bar6); I seriously doubt that sprintf would be faster that a couple of strcats. And I don't think we need to worry about this kind of micro-optimizations right now... -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
