develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from May 2010

Re: [perl #75350] PATCH: revamp ibcmp_utf8() for efficiency, clarity

Thread Previous | Thread Next
karl williamson
May 30, 2010 13:40
Re: [perl #75350] PATCH: revamp ibcmp_utf8() for efficiency, clarity
Message ID:
demerphq wrote:
> On 29 May 2010 01:28, karl williamson <> wrote:
>> demerphq wrote:
>>> On 25 May 2010 20:24, karl williamson <> wrote:
>>>> # New Ticket Created by  karl williamson
>>>> # Please include the string:  [perl #75350]
>>>> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
>>>> # <URL: >
>>>> The first times I looked at this routine, it seemed incomprehensible.  I
>>>> had to come back to it to fix a bug after working on other parts of Perl
>>>> for a while, and it wasn't as foreign as before.  But I had to really
>>>> understand it, so I started adding comments, and discovered that it was
>>>> checking a number of things each time in the loop that could have  been
>>>> figured out once.  So I ended up revamping it, keeping the same
>>>> algorithm.
>>> Somebody please figure out how to clone Karl so we have a backup. Thanks.
>>> On a more serious note...
>>> This looks much nicer to read than the original. ++ to you.
>>> +Returns true if the strings s1 and s2 differ case-insensitively, false
>>> +if they are equal case-insensitively.  Note that this is the complement
>>> of what
>>> +you might expect (perhaps it would have been better to name it
>>> C<ibncmp_utf8>).
>>> Seems to me that cmp routines always behave like this, they return -1
>>> for inorder but different, 0 for different, and 1 for reverse order.
>> I agree that I was wrong, and ibncmp is not a good name, but this routine
>> returns only TRUE or FALSE, unlike the cmp routines.  A better comparison
>> would be with functions like memNE.  I'm always startled when I read code
>> calling this function, because it looks like it's doing the wrong thing to
>> me, and I'm a firm believer that names can help or hinder.
> Me too. If you think this function should be renamed, and we can still
> proved a back-compat alias should something actually be using it, then
> go ahead and rename it.
> Be bold!

OK; I'll try.  But I'm now thinking your tries for case insensitive 
matching will cause this function to actually not be needed in the core?

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About