Subject: Re: proposed change to UT_String
From: Joaquín Cuenca Abela (cuenca@celium.net)
Date: Sat Apr 14 2001 - 18:12:19 CDT
Mike Nordell wrote:
>
> Joaquín wrote:
> > Mike Nordell wrote:
> > > What might do the trick would be:
> > > m_pEnd = m_psz;
> >
> > of course. Need sleep, sorry.
>
> And I've got a flu from .dk. Who's next, anyone got pneumonia? :-)
I've been lacking a good 8-9h sleep since I come back from .dk :-)
> > To see the gain we should have a string,
> > fill it with something, clear it, refill it with something else, reclear
> > it, and so on.
> >
> > I think that in this scenario it will actually make a difference.
>
> It would, but how does that compare to the memory footprint and current
> usage patterns in AW? I think it's currently premature optimization, but if
> proven wrong I'm all for it.
No, I think that you're 100% right. I think that I saw a place where it
can happen, it wakep up my memory, and I just write "what if..."
In addition, maybe there are people that may think that a .clear() will
delete[] the memory instead of a UT_String ().swap(...), and it may
become confusing.
So I agree to leave clear as is right now.
Cheers,
-- Joaquín Cuenca Abela cuenca@celium.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Apr 14 2001 - 18:12:24 CDT