Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?

At 11:40 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

>I agree with Don that the performance benefit is likely to be
>unmeasurable.  Still, there could be a win: we currently have to modify
>keywords.c by hand every time we have to add/delete a keyword.  Does
>gperf offer any aid for maintaining the keyword list?  If so, that'd
>be sufficient reason to switch to it...

If so, yeah, it might make sense.  Without looking at the existing
code, though, the existing "binary search on a fixed array" makes
me think of a list of keywords in alphabetical order.  If true,
entering new keywords in alphabetical order doesn't seem like a terrible
burden on the implementor.  The resulting list is probably more readable
if kept alphabetical anyway...



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.