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(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.