George <greerga@CIRCLEMUD.ORG> writes:
> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_PARAMS; i++)
> > split_results[i][0] = 0;
>
> memset?
>
> Somewhat overkill, but if you don't unroll that loop it would be faster.
Sure, bzero or memset would be just as good. The code is non-optimized.
> > while(*arg && isspace(*arg)) arg++;
>
> skip_spaces?
skip_spaces would work fine. Personally I don't like skip spaces
much; it's ugly code. Heh, it is one of the few functions that would
look better as a macro ;) (the isspace would ensure type safety).
Skip spaces would work just as well though. Doesn't much matter
either way.
#define skip_spaces(s) while(*(s) && isspace(*s)) (s)++
So skip_spaces(arg) instead of skip_spaces(&arg).
More or less a moot issue. However, if you look at skip_spaces
definition, it's just ugly to look at. Works just fine, but it's
painful on the eyes.
Elegance can be nice. Certainly not saying the above code is
ellegant; just saying that skip_spaces isn't. ;)
--
James Turner turnerjh@xtn.net
http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~turnerj1/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST