Laruence wrote:
> I think we are not talking about how to accomplish a function, we
> are talking about how to do it better
>
> and, in fact, I think strrev is need more cpu time and alloc space,
> although they are very tiny :)
I very much doubt it's ever going to be a bottleneck (and I think the
same about strncmp vs. substr; no real need to avoid a temp variable). I
could see this patch being useful, but personally, I think the substr
solution is a better one, since it doesn't risk breaking BC, as Rasmus
noted.
--
Ryan McCue
<http://ryanmccue.info/>