From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-02-12 08:15:58
|
Colin Paul Adams wrote: >>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes: > > Eric> Colin Paul Adams wrote: > >>>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <co...@co...> > >>>>>>> writes: > Colin> For XML 1.1, the equivalent to \c is 3830417 bytes long. > Colin> This is definitely too big, so something is wrong with the > Colin> test program. > >> No. What is wrong is that this figure includes all as yet > >> unallocated code-points (barring a few excluded ones). For XML > >> 1.0, the figure is 104080. Either way, the strings are too > >> long > > Eric> You're probably right. On the other hand is it that big > Eric> compared to what you have generated in the classes > Eric> ST_UNICODE_VNNN_*_ROUTINES? > > Yes. > Because the latter are direct access (looking up values in an array), > whereas the former requires a search of the entire string For compiled regexp, I don't think it searches in the pattern string. It builds arrays and uses these arrays to match the input string. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |