[DGD] Reasonable Tick Counts?

[Noah Gibbs]

  You'll find that parse_string() has high overhead if you only do it once (the
overhead is mostly from compiling the grammar), but that it perks up when you
use the same grammar multiple times.  So if you're only planning to do ASCII
substitution once per run of your MUD, don't use it :-)

--- Kurt Nordstrom <kurt at blar.net> wrote:

> Okay, well, I found a way to implement it with explode() and implode()
> that seems to work.  Don't know why I didn't do it that way in the first
> place.  Are you sure a parse_string() solution would be the most
> efficient?  Seems to have a good chunk of overhead there.
> 
> And yeah, it was character-by-character before.  Some things I seem to
> be determined to learn the hard way.
> 
> -Kurt
> 
> Noah Gibbs wrote:
> >   Oh -- I should probably also say that there are much better and much
> worse
> > ways to code this kind of thing in DGD.  For instance, are you using
> > parse_string() to parse the escape sequences?  It's almost certainly the
> best
> > way to do it, and a character-by-character parser could conceivably be
> > inefficient enough to require 10k ticks on fairly modest inputs.
> >   
> 
> ___________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> 





       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz